This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," July 16, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening everyone, I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle" on what was a historic day. You've been hearing a lot about the Trump Putin meeting not a summit, but I guarantee that you'll get analysis here that you're not going to find anywhere else. So stick it right here, stick with us through the hour, you don't want to miss a minute. Plus Raymond Arroyo will be here to tell you about a sick cartoon that was published by the New York Times, it is unbelievable.

And back state side anti-police protests in Chicago got violent over the weekend after a police shooting. Mark Furman breaks down the surprising revelation in the officers' body camp footage. And Judge Jeanine will tell us how things are only going to get worse for those anti-Trump texting FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. But first, Trump and Putin go to Helsinki, that's the focus of tonight's Angle.

For three hours today, President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met a summit in Helsinki. And though the meeting's now in the history books, the fall out and the political tax have just begun. Now so much of the commentary today was devoid of even the slightest hint of context or history, so we thought we'd try to rectify that tonight. He was following a strategy that he's used effectively with Xi Jinping of China and Kim Jong-un of North Korea and the President of course was gracious and chummy with Vladimir Putin today.

President Trump prefers to turn on the charm in person while using the hammer and sickle behind the scenes. But the president made his objective clear, he was there to begin a true reset of our relationship with Russia.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Cooperation between our two countries has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives. We have 90 percent of nuclear power between the two countries. As president I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics.


INGRAHAM: I think that was my favorite line of today, well written. The two leaders did hit on a range of keys issues.


TRUMP: We also discussed one of the most critical challenges facing humanity, nuclear proliferation. We discussed the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism. I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections. I spent a great deal of time talking about it


INGRAHAM: And indeed it was on that subject of Russian interference in our election that the president gave kind of a verbal gift to his critics.


TRUMP: My people came to me, Dan Coats, came to me and some others, they said they think it's Russia. I have just have President Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I would say this, I don't see any reason why it would be. I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.


INGRAHAM: Don't use the words strong and powerful. Immediately following the presser though, you would have thought that Trump actually would have defected to Russia given the mass hysteria.


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: You have been watching perhaps one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN HOST: He's with someone like Putin who is a thug, a world class thug, that he sides with him again and again against his own country's interests.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: You have the president. The leader of the free world, taking the word of Vladimir Putin who from all accounts inside the US government, the US intelligence committee, the law enforcement community, attacked American democracy in 2016. They came across as playmates on a soccer field.

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: You should call this the surrender summit .


INGRAHAM: Surrender? Now, did I miss something today? Did Donald Trump withdraw U.S. sanctions on Russia? Or did he invite those 60 diplomats and others he expelled in March from Russia? Did he cancel future sales of lethal weapons to the Ukraine? Of course he didn't. But he might as well have given the media and Liberal hyperbole on what happened today. Today's Obama's CIA director John Brennan tweeted in part, ‘Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous'

Why doesn't anybody laugh about that? And why did not one call it surrender, by the way, when in 2009 President Obama nicks the UN missile defense shield that was to be built in Poland. Was that a surrender to Putin? Or was it a surrender or collusion when Obama asked Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev for a little favor until the 2012 election was over?


BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV, RUSSIAN PRIME MINISTER: I understand. I'll transmit this information to Vladimir.


INGRAHAM: I mean they're holding hand and practically spooning. What was that? A profile in patriotism? I don't recall the media kicking up a fuss when Obama joined the Cuban dictator Raoul Castro for a baseball game or normalize relations with that murderous regime, by the way, a puppet of Russia. Now you can also say this, Trump clearly should not have created any semblance of moral equivalency between our intelligence, even if it has its flaws it does, and the assurances of Vladimir Putin.

As the recent indictments of Russian agents alleged, there was meddling in the election by partisan members of congressional panels concluded that, so did our director of national intelligence. But it also, no sense, that it affected the outcome of the 2016 election and no Americans were named in last week's indictment. So President Trump probably should have said it that way, addressed it that way. Instead he kind of committed an unforced error. But look, the president is right, at the same time be frustrated by the anvil that the deep state has hung around his neck for two years now.

First the elements within the FBI, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok and now Mueller and his ever expanding team. And we know inside the DOJ they basically protected Hillary Clinton while attempting to damn and undermine the legitimacy of Trump's election. And this gnaws at the president and it perhaps explains why he let those wounds get the better of him today.

But it is a good thing to improve our relationship with Russia and at the same time we cannot appear to buy their obvious deception while we're standing on the world stage. I'm doing a lot of well, at the same times, but this is a complicated thing and I think while insulting Putin on camera like doing that, Donald Trump versus Vladimir Putin on a total insult fest, that wouldn't have accomplished anything. At the same time, there are other subtler ways to make our concerns and our objections known and the president should have taken that path.

US national intelligence director Dan Coats issued a statement in the wake of the summit today. He said the following, "We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy. And we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security"

Now setting aside the overly dramatic reactions and even the president's at times poor and unfortunate word choice, let's look for a moment at what Trump is substantively doing vis-.-vis Russia. He's building up the military, key. At a NATO Summit, he called out the German-Russian Nord Stream pipeline. In March of this year he imposed sanctions on five Russian entities and 19 individuals for interfering in the 2016 election. The media don't like to remind you of that one of course, that doesn't fit their narrative. And of course he closed the Russian conflict in Seattle. And as I eluded to earlier, he expelled Russian diplomats and suspected spies, 60 of them.

So if Trump is Putin's poodle. He has a real weir way of showing it. As writer Russell Meade said in American Interests last year, if Trump really was a Russian mole, he would be doing things like the following, limiting tracking as much as possible. Blocking oil and gas pipelines. Cutting U.S. military spending and trying to tamp down tensions with Russia's ally Iran. But Trump's doing none of that so the selective indignation on the left is truly hilarious.

They keep changing their stories. For decades, they favored a conciliatory stance first toward the Soviet Union, then toward the Russian Federation. And now they're all pretending to care about Russia and casting Trump as a Putin surrogate. But it's good to remember just a few years ago how certain Liberals reacted when then presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested that Russia was a foe.


OBAMA: The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY : In many of the areas where we are working to solve problems Russia has been an ally.

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: Governor Romney's answer I thought, was incredibly revealing. He acts like he still thinks the cold war is still on. Russia is still our major adversary, I don't know where he's been.

JOHN KERRY, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Mitt Romney acts like he's only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV.


INGRAHAM: So which is it? Should we be getting closer to Russia and Putin or should we have a dynamic of constant confrontation and hostility? The Liberals change their views clearly depending on which party has the White House. I think in the end what really matters is how Trump handles the Russian relationship going forward. So despite some of these verbal missteps, the president has already put us, I think, in a better position by engaging Russia and opening dialogue. It's just a start and that's the Angle.

Joining me now for reaction is Scott Uelhinger a former CIA officer based in Russia, Steven Yates the former deputy assistant to Dick Chaney in international security affairs and here in the studio is Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union. Matt your reaction.

MATT SCHLAPP, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: Yeah I think what you said really captures it which is the most important part of this is the policy. Should we be getting along with Putin's Russia? Absolutely. The idea that we have Liberals calling for open warfare is absurd. By the same token, it's fair to criticize the president today. He had some errant answers. He gave some answers that are actually uncoupled from his own foreign policy. I think if we go back to what important, looking at the policy, I think he's got it dead on right.

INGRAHAM: Scott your time in Russia as a CIA officer watching Vladimir Putin, you see he never really left the KGB behind. He's crafty, he's very canny, savvy the way he answers his questions. Turns them around on the journalists and so forth but what was your big takeaway from today, the media focusing on Trump's seeming to draw moral equivalence between US Intel services and Putin's assurances?

SCOTT UELHINGER, FORMER CIA OFFICER: Well as you had said Laura, the selective outrage of the Liberal media is breath-taking to behold. They criticize President Trump onus as if he was sending $150 billion on a palette to Iran, for example. But in fact our polices directed against Russia are considerably stronger than they were a decade ago and it's starting to tell.

Another key point that perhaps you missed was that our present energy policy. Our energy policy of increasing our exploiting of natural gas to Northern Europe is in fact undercutting Russian natural gas and hurting them where they live. It's depriving President Putin of the revenue he needs from mischief making abroad. So our polices are working and in this case, deeds speak stronger than the occasional gaps of the US president.

INGRAHAM: Yeah Scott I think if Donald Trump were up there and just started lobbying insults at Putin, I think that gives Putin a real PR victory at home. Because he can go home and say, "Look we've gotten so much under their skin. Look I stood up to the President" But you use that for your nationalist gains at home. I lived in the Soviet Union in the old days in 1983 for a semester in college and that was when Andropov was president, that was in the real dark days of the quickie presidential terms back then.

But the idea that he was just going lobby insults at him, that is just ridiculous, unrealistic. We don't do that with President Xi, Obama didn't and as far as I can tell neither did Bush. We rolled out the red carpet and China took 50 million of our personnel files during the Obama administration, I've never even heard him talk about it.

UELHINGER: That's right and another thing to remember is that we have an unprecedented, incredibly biased press. Now I can't imagine right now if there was, at the Reykjav¬k Summit, if President Reagan and Gorbachev having a western media that would be asking Reagan in front of the world's cameras to denounce the leader, in this case Gorbachev as a liar to his face. Because this shows that the progressive mainstream media is more willing to grenade throw in the name of derailing Trump that it is in supporting any positive movement in relations.

INGRAHAM: Let's get Stephen in on this. Stephen when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire the left went crazy. "You're sable rattling" They called him Ronny Reagun, we're going to talk to Craig Surely, a biographer shortly about this about this. They went nuts and it was kicking the hornet's nest with the Soviet Union, we should get along with the Soviet Union. That was during the Cold War now we're post-Cold War, we still have challenges, but now they want to get tough on Russia.

I was just howling at those because for those of us who were around this town in the 80s and if we worked in the Reagan administration, you couldn't get a break with the left and is dealings with the Soviet Union. But now they want to set up a shadow government. I want to play something for you Stephen for you to react to. This is Phillip Mudd, former CIA man under Obama, let's watch.


PHILLIP MUDD, CNN ANALYST: FBI Director continues the investigation, department of justice continues to support the investigation, congress continues saying that this investigation is legitimate. Curios point in American government, when do we see almost a shadow American government come out and say, "We cannot side with the government"? Whether it's the cabinet or the senate, I think that's the big question.


INGRAHAM: Stephen shadow government needs to form to apparently undue the presidential election. Your reaction.

STEPHEN YATES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Well where's a former Obama CIA director calling treason when you need him because that's actually what that would be. And I think we've really really run the limits on absolute Trump derangement syndrome across the board on how people react to this kind of thing. But really I think the President was trying to do two hard things at one time today and it might have been what's tripped up some of the communications.

I agree completely on the strategy side of it that you got in the Angle. He's restoring realism, trying to get great power relations back on track, balancing one power against another to try to solve real problems. The proof of this is results, not in instantaneous sound bites but he's also the deal maker. He wants something now and he's jumping in there and I think the deal maker in him used some traits there in the presser that complicated things. And I think he's doing very well on the longer term strategy.

INGRAHAM: Fascinating. Matt this is what the media were saying today about what the Intel chiefs should be doing here in the United States should be doing in reaction to what we saw in Helsinki, let's watch.


JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump basically said he believes Vladimir Putin over his intelligence committee. Should the director of national intelligence Dan Coats resign in protest?

JAKE SULLIVAN, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO JOE BIDEN: I think the right thing for Dan Coats to do would be to send a clear message and say he can no longer serve this president.

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBS HOST: How does Gina Haspel stay on the job? How does Dan Coats stay on the job? He has now rebuked their professional assessment of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.


INGRAHAM: Everyone's got to resign apparently because Trump had that press conference.

SCHLAPP: President Trump is trying to do what the previous administration tried remember the reset button. Remember your clip about Medvedev--

INGRAHAM: He went like this Matt. He held Medvedev's hand. Can you imagine if Trump held Vladimir Putin's had today? I will translate that to Vladimir later, thank you very much Mr President.

SCHLAPP: When other presidents try to start the relationship off on the right foot, they're called warriors for peace. Donald Trump tries to do that and he's called deranged. Look, I agree with you, he had some answers that were off the mark but the policy is right. The president needs to understand he's winning on this, stick to the course.

INGRAHAM: He's winning on this and I think there are two things you can hold in your mind at the same time. Number one, having a better relationship with Russia. I've heard Bill Richardson say that on TV today. We had Obama say it, Hillary say, Bush said it. He drove around in his pickup truck with Vladimir Putin, remember that at Crawford?

SCHLAPP: He looked into his heart remember that

INGRAHAM: And he saw his soul but see I think you could have those two thoughts in your mind. A better relationship with Russia and also have a clear eye view of what Russia's complex history, they're very proud people. They love the motherland as the glory days. They think they don't want them to be behind them but the economy has shrunk, their population is shrinking. They're on many in ways on the decline and they're not the threat that China is to us. I mean they're economy, what is it? Half the size of California's I mean it's ridiculous.

YATES: Europe's economy dwarfs that of Russia at this point and that's what made it even more laughable when they were having discussions about NATO and whether European countries should pay their fair share. And I think if Nixon can go to China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution with literally dozens and dozens of millions of Chinese people were killed by their own government.

INGRAHAM: 60 million.

YATES: And we can talk about geopolitics and real things that need to change in the world because even more lives are at stake if we don't, that's what going on. When you're talking about the nuclear stock pile, it's not just whether Russia uses it, it's whether Russia sells it and proliferates it and so that's the stakes.

INGRAHAM: All right fascinating panel. Thank you all, great perspectives. By the way president Trump and Putin are each speaking separately with Fox News tonight but can the US Russia relationship be repaired given the partisan politics here at home. Answers next.

Oh boy the drama from today's Trump Putin Summit didn't stop at the press conference. The two leaders each sat down with Fox News this evening. Here's President Trump speaking with Sean Hannity about the impediments to change.


TRUMP: 90 percent of the nuclear power in the world between these two nations and we've had a phony witch hunt deal drive us apart.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: This is the biggest wedge. This was the biggest wedge.

TRUMP: It was. It's the thing that he told me when he went in. He said, "What a shame" He felt it was hard for me to make a deal because of all of this nonsense.


INGRAHAM: Meanwhile Vladimir Putin was pressed by Chris Wallace about Russian meddling in the 2016 election.


VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT: You really believe that someone from acting from the Russian territory could have influenced the United States and influenced the choice of millions of Americans, this utterly ridiculous.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I'm not asking about it--


INGRAHAM: Joining us now for reaction, Ian Bremmer the President and founder of the Urasia Group. Monica Crowely from the London Centre for Policy Research along with Ariel Cohen, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Ariel, let's start with you. You heard the Angle, my view on the Angle, some verbal missteps but the substantive policy coming out of this administration toward Russia in my mind is quite realistic and pragmatic given the difficulties with Russia, the challenges, the deception and also a hope for a better future.

ARIEL COHEN, SENIOR FELLOW AT THE ATLANTIC FELLOW: Well definitely we should all hope for the better future. However to expect that Russia is somehow going to change. That they're going to address a terrible crisis in Ukraine, occupation and axation of a Crimea is not realistic. So probably Mr Trump is trying to several things, one he is addressing the nuclear issue. We all need some kind of arms control. Second, I think he's trying to detach Russia from China, good luck with that but if you didn't try you won't know.

INGRAHAM: They think that that's a pretty big deal because China's a real threat to the United States--

COHEN: It's a huge deal, nobody's talking about it. China is a huge competitor economically, geopolitically--

INGRAHAM: What's the size of China's economy compared to Russia? Give me the rough estimate? Eight times, ten times? Yeah about that, it dwarfs Russia's economy.

COHEN: Roughly, China is probably eight times bigger. It's getting closer to our economy, that's the problem and they're catching up in a number of technologies that are absolutely vital.

INGRAHAM: He wants to triangulate China, Russia, does he not? That's part of what he wants to do.

COHEN: He's not explaining that and then he getting attacked. But I think the main problem I had watching this summit, watching these dynamics is not the policy but presentation by Mr Trump who now is in a unique position of fighting the intelligence community and fighting most of the media.


IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT OF EURASIA GROUP AND GZERO MEDIA: I do believe that trying to get the Russians long term on side of the United States against China would be a smarter strategy. China frankly is going to overwhelm Russia economically, demographically but the ability, as Ariel said, of the Americans to do that at this point is really zero.

Furthermore if you want Trump to try and triangulate China, you'd want the south pacific partnership. You'd want a good relationship with America's allies and Europe. You'd want a good relationship with America's allies and Japan, Trump's not working on any of those things so--

INGRAHAM: Oh our relationship with Japan is very strong.

COHEN: It was.

INGRAHAM: Our relationship with the NATO allies from Merkel to Macron even to Theresa May, they all seemed to be positive coming out of that summit. Even the NATO secretary general when he was pressed by Christiane Amanpour, she was trying to get them to say, he said it was a very good summit for us. So they're all lying?

COHEN: I was that was true. No of course not. They're being diplomatic because they don't want to break NATO and I', not saying that not true.

INGRAHAM: They're got to pay their fair share and the American--

COHEN: I'm not saying that that's not true. I'm just saying that if Trump is trying to build an alliance vis-.-vis China which I think we all believe it's the most important strategic thing to do he's not gone about that very effectively. Look, his foreign policy is not his nag, it's not easy.

INGRAHAM: Well he's new to it. In a few moments we're going to hear about some of the major foreign policy blunders by presidents when a lot more was at stake, even at this. But he's a year and half into it so let's see what happens--

COHEN: What I would have liked Laura today, most importantly would have been for him to listen to his advisors. It would have been that two hour meeting at the beginning because he's new to it, not to try and do it by himself. But instead actually have the people around him that are trying to work the United States long term.

INGRAHAM: Yeah the bilat stuff that they did simultaneously and beforehand I think I heard was very very positive. But Monica look some of these points are well taken and I think all panel here all believes that China here is the real threat to the United States long-term militarily, it's the largest standing army. The economy's going to dwarf ours, stealing our technology, the South China Sea, they're moving into Africa and beyond. But nevertheless Obama back in 2016 I think it was October or December of 2016, he was talking about the fact that he didn't confront Vladimir Putin on this Russian meddling when he could have confronted it as president. Listen to what he said.


OBAMA: It's not like Putin's going around the world publicly saying, "Look what we did, it wasn't that clever" He denied it so the idea that somehow public shaming is going to be effective I think doesn't read the thought process in Russia very well.


INGRAHAM: All right Monica, few of us on the panel lived in Soviet Union for shorter periods of time or longer periods of time and the idea of shaming Russia on the world stage, I think Obama was right there. You don't get anything from the Russians by shaming them, I think that gives Putin a huge victory at home. Ariel might disagree but Monica your shot at this, Obama was kind of interesting what he said there bit the media seemed to forget this.

MONICA CROWLEY, LONDON CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH: Well yes that's exactly right. The Obama administration was made aware including all the way up to the president himself, certainly during the spring months and then later of 2016, that the Russians were engaged in these active measures to disrupt the American electoral process. What we also forget is that the Russians targeted the Republican National Committee servers and their sort of computerized systems. They weren't able to penetrate those but they were able to penetrate the DNC's.

The idea somehow that all of this is new, we know that the Russians have been actively engaged in trying to disrupt American elections, Western elections, really since the advent of the cold war. What different now is that they have these cyber capabilities that take it to a whole other level.

INGRAHAM: And they're serious. This is serious.

CROWLEY: And they're serious yes. And so while I really support the president's attempt to try and press the reset button with the Russian relationship unlike Mrs Clinton and President Obama and they're failed attempt, I support the overall effort. But the core strength of the American president's power is his moral authority and I would have liked to have seen a stronger public statement on behalf of the president to condemn this. I mean we remember in 2009 Laura, when the Iranian people rose up against the Iranian regime, we pounded President Obama for not at least speaking a word of moral support for them. I would have liked to have seen the president give some moral statement against what the Russians have done, not just to us but to our allies.

INGRAHAM: And that's why, Ariel, we pounded Obama when he said to Medvedev, held his hand and said give us more flexibility after the election, I'll transmit your views to Vladimir. We pounded that. The Democrat, the media ignored him. What does flexibility mean? What did he mean by that? We never got an answer.

COHEN: But Laura, if you remember President Reagan, he took the high moral ground. He talked about their shining city on the hill, and he also improved the relationship with the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union was ready for that. And I think that model should guard Mr. Trump as well.

IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT EURASIA GROUP: Let's just be clear that there are a bunch of things that people were concerned that Trump was going to do that he didn't do. He didn't actually say that Ukraine is done. He didn't actually say that Crimea is Russian. He didn't actually say the Americans are going to stop military exercises in the Baltic. He didn't actually say the Americans are going to pull troops out of Syria. For all of the moral equivalency and the statecraft that he should not of done, the fact that the content of the U.S.-Russian relations today are exactly the same as they were yesterday, and that is an appropriate thing.

INGRAHAM: Substance versus verbal missteps. Interesting. We'll see how it goes going forward.

And by the way, one of the biggest things missing from today's summit, historical context. But we've got an esteemed presidential historian to go through all that noise. We're going to take a look at The New York Times ugly cultural narrative being created about the summit with Raymond Arroyo next.


INGRAHAM: While the left and the media are going into absolute hysterics over today's meeting between Trump and Putin, let's put this summit in some historical context. Bestselling author and Ronald Reagan historian Craig Shirley joins me with more. Craig, as you watched this unfold today, did it remind you of any mistakes by rookie presidents in the past?

CRAIG SHIRLEY, REAGAN HISTORIAN: Sure. Thank you, Laura. It reminded me in some ways of Kennedy at Vienna with Khrushchev in 1961. They got into a free for all debate over the merits of the western system versus the east. Kennedy couldn't mount an effective defense of the free market or democracy, and Khrushchev came away from the summit very, very unimpressed with Kennedy's performance, which a lot of people thought -- a lot of a historians thought at the time emboldened Khrushchev to keep going with the Berlin crisis and later build the wall, and later thereafter to put missiles into Cuba. Fortunately Kennedy found his steel and forced the missiles out. But it was a disastrous summit by all accounts.

Obviously Yalta, also for FDR was also a disaster. He went in there thinking Joe Stalin was a good guy, I'm going to give him what he wants, and I'm not going to ask anything in return. And we ceded millions of people to the eastern bloc, millions of people in now the Warsaw Pact countries who ended up living under enslavement under the Soviet Union for many years.

INGRAHAM: What about Nixon and Brezhnev? One of his summits was kind of a disaster.

SHIRLEY: Nixon gave too much away to Brezhnev. Nixon and Kissinger were interested in a good photo op, they were interested in the trophy on the wall. Nixon gave grain sales to the Soviets, he gave loan guarantees to the Soviets, didn't really ask anything in return. That was the point, is that Reagan understood what these other presidents didn't understand. The Soviets will take and take and take until you draw a line in the sand.

Back in 1964 Reagan understood this in his famous speech for Barry Goldwater. This is that the Soviet Union -- and he knew this from his days in Hollywood fighting off Soviet provocateurs with the Hollywood trade unions -- is the Soviets will never stop until somebody stands up to them. And that is what Reagan understood, what FDR only understood in the last couple weeks of his life where he admitted to a reporter before he passed away that it was a mistake to trust Joseph Stalin.

Carter found out he was dismay it was a mistake to trust Brezhnev because within weeks of the SALT-II treaty being signed the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. That's what Trump needs to understand is that the culture, whether it's a Soviets or the Russians, it doesn't matter. They respect strength, they abhor weakness, and you have to deal with them for a position of strength.

INGRAHAM: So how would you have advised him to have handled this today differently?

SHIRLEY: Well, I would have pointed out the areas of agreement, pointed out the need to keep talking, pointed at the fundamental differences between the United States and Russia, and that there are things that could not be overcome whatsoever. And it's just a fact of life. He should have dealt with my position of strength and not undermined his own intelligence agencies.

He can clean this up. Kennedy cleaned it up, FDR didn't, obviously, he passed away. But he can make amends, he can make repairs to this. The point, I think, Laura, is that the mistakes that Trump may today aren't earthshaking.

INGRAHAM: They are not substantive. That was the point in my Angle. They are not substantive. They are verbal. It's an approach and tone, which, it is what it is now but he didn't agree to substantive caves is on key issues. We have a pretty realistic, tough approach to Russia. And he just thinks we should try to figure out ways to work together, which is what Obama said, Bush said, Clinton wanted, they all wanted this. And none of it came too much fruition.

But Craig, the historical part of this is so important, and I so much appreciate you joining us tonight. If it didn't happen in "The New York Times" today, most people think it never happened. So we really appreciate your insight. Thanks so much.

By the way, another story, "The New York Times," about how vicious things are getting, recently published his bizarre, idiotic video about the Trump- Putin meeting that some are calling gross and even homophobic. "New York Times" bestselling author and Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo is here with reaction. Raymond, what is this all about?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: This is part of a series that The New York Times opinion page has mounted. They have three installments. It's called "Trump Bites." And this particular video, and again, this is all about narrative, OK. This is what the pop culture and people who aren't focused on policy take away. This one is called "Trump and Putin, A Love Story." I'll read you the description. The not so secret admiration for Vladimir Putin plays out in a teenager's bedroom where the fantasies of this forbidden romance come to life. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have a relationship with Vladmir Putin?

TRUMP: I do have a relationship with him. A lot of people would say he's put himself at the forefront of the world as a leader.

Russia is like -- I mean, they are really hot stuff.


INGRAHAM: Oh, my God, --

ARROYO: We can't show you much more of it.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my God. It's stupid.

ARROYO: The point is, Laura this is the narrative they are trying to portray, and they are getting a lot of pushback today. I've been flipping through The New York Times opinion pages. On July 7th -- or 6th, rather, they posted a story, "Why Scarlett Johansson should not play a transman." She was about to play transgendered man and a movie. Now, their argument was you can't have someone who is not transgendered playing a transgendered character. So why is it OK to have two straight men in what is essentially a gay romantic comedy? A lot of people are pushing back, including LGBT activists. And I think you have a tweet there for a rather prominent writer.

INGRAHAM: Here is the -- we have a tweet by -- this is funny. I have to put this together. We have a tweet by -- no, we have a sound bite by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Should we play that now?

ARROYO: No, no, no, go to Mike Drucker. It's Mike Drucker's tweet. I don't have it in front of me.

INGRAHAM: Here it is. Sorry. Here it is. It says "Congrats to everyone doing gay jokes about Trump and Putin, throwing your own beliefs under the bus for a political cartoon they'll never see." I see what you're saying. They get caught in their own petard here.

ARROYO: And look, people are very upset about this in the gay community, and rightfully so. They are making light of their lifestyle. And in addition to those, if you are the president and you know this narrative is out there, and it's in the pop culture, and it's in movies, I'm going to show you another clip in a moment of a show called "Our Cartoon President," Stephen Colbert's show on Showtime, they too make the same argument. So why you fall into the trap and give them real ammo when your substance tells a very different story? Watch this. This is from "Our Cartoon President."

INGRAHAM: I don't think -- we don't have that actually. But the point is well taken. Hold on. The point is well taken. "The New York Times" is declining in readership, declining and influence, and this was a Twitter deal they did with this stupid, idiotic cartoon video. It's moronic. It's offensive of course, but it's moronic. This is where journalism has gone. It's all one big "Saturday Night Live" spoof video. It's embarrassing, it really is.

ARROYO: My problem is I think people want an escape. They don't want to see this stuff. And if you look at the top-rated movies of the weekend, Laura, it was "Hotel Transylvania" and "Antman" because we've got a lot of monsters around, and heroes are smaller than ever.

INGRAHAM: Exactly. And ahead -- thank you, Raymond -- a big-time protest in Chicago over a police shooting, but you won't believe what the police body cam showed footage actually shows. We'll have the full story next.


INGRAHAM: Two-hundred-and-sixty-one, that's how many people have been murdered in Chicago this year, and most of it happening in minority communities on the city's west and south sides. It's an ongoing American tragedy, yet you don't see many protests demanding change. Unless of course a police officer is involved. And on Saturday, officers shot and killed 37-year-old Harith Augustus following a confrontation. A violent protest quickly broke out, and Chicago police say four officers were injured from the demonstrators throwing rocks and bottles, some of which were filled with urine.

Police swiftly released body cam footage of the encounter which appears to show Mr. Augustus with a holstered gun around his waist. Protests continued tonight, however. Joining me now for reaction is former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman. So Mark, based on what you have seen in this body cam footage, I've had a chance to watch it a couple of times, do you think these protesters tonight have a legitimate beef?

MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: Laura, once again we have a false narrative. Just like in the Michael Brown shooting, you have a false narrative of his hands were up, he was running away, not running towards the officer, but there was nobody camera. Now Superintendent Johnson in Chicago immediately released, something that is really out of protocol and really actually harms an investigation, but he did it do try to save exactly what is happening. And this body cam is the view of an officer in a tactical situation that is crystal clear, something that you will rarely ever see again, crystal-clear, and everything there is the evidence that points to a justified police shooting. I am in shock that the public in Chicago is up in arms about this man acting as he did, armed, with four officers.

INGRAHAM: Isn't it the case, Mark, that there's such a level of distrust that it's fomented by some actions on the part of the police but also mostly by these Black Lives Matter protests and organizers who come in and immediately start to stoke public outrage about these incidents. They call for the mayor's resignation -- I am no fan of Rahm Emanuel, but they are calling for his resignation tonight, the resignation of other top city officials, saying they are violating the ongoing I guess consent decree with the government. There is real damage done again, and everyone seems to be afraid to call this what it is. It's crime and reaction to an unfortunate, awful situation. But a lot of these protests turn into criminal activity over the weekend.

FUHRMAN: Absolutely. But let's not forget the suspect precipitated his own death. He had many opportunities where he didn't have to have to die, and he chose to do what he did, and he did die. But when you look at this narrative of Black Lives Matter, it is the boy who cried wolf. And pretty soon nobody is going to listen when there is really an incident where they actually should take up protests and actually demonstrate their power to actually get justice. This is not the case.

INGRAHAM: And they are comparing this, Mark, to Laquan McDonald, that case, of course, saying this is another police cover up. They're not going to believe the video that is released, they don't believe that. You see stuff online that's all fake, it's a fake video made by the police, it's not really what happened. It's another Laquan McDonald situation.

FUHRMAN: The police and the city government of Chicago should just ignore them then. If they are not going to be reasonable and look at body cam footage, you can't do anything more with police officers then put a camera on their chest and have you view what the officer views and actually see the action the officer takes against the suspect and the reaction of the suspect. You can't do anything more. If they are not satisfied with that, then stop placating their demands. Just stop listening.

INGRAHAM: And remember, "hands up don't shoot," even when that was proven to be complete malarkey, they still have that in protest signs, "hands up, don't shoot" from the Michael Brown case. Mark Fuhrman, thank you so much, always great to have you on.

And Lisa Page meeting with members of Congress for a second day of private testimony. So did her lover Peter Strzok fail to tell the truth during his testimony last week? Judge Jeanine Pirro joins us next to analyze.



PETER STRZOK, FBI AGENT: I think it's important when you look at those texts that you understand the context in which they were made and the things that were going on across America. In terms of the texts that we will stop it, you need to understand that that was written late at night, off-the-cuff, and it was in response to a series of events that included then candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero.


INGRAHAM: God, I can't stand him. Sorry. That was Peter Strzok last week telling members of Congress his own text messages about Donald Trump really didn't mean anything. But his former lover, Lisa Page, after two days of private meetings with members of Congress, may be painting a different picture. Listen to Congressman Matt Gaetz.


REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: I found Lisa Page to be far more credible than Peter Strzok. I didn't agree with your characterization of every text message and every piece of evidence, but we did not see the smug attitude from Lisa Page that we saw from Peter Strzok.


INGRAHAM: Joining me now with reaction is Fox News' Judge Jeanine Pirro, who is also the author of the brand-new book "Liars, Leakers, and Liberals," I love the alliteration, "The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy." Judge Jeanine, congrats on the book, first of all. And your book dovetails perfectly into what we have seen with Strzok and Page. But you heard Matt Gaetz and Mark Meaders kind of effusive in their praise of her, saying I wouldn't with everything, but she seemed to contradict what Peter Strzok said on the meanings of some of these text messages.

JEANINE PIRRO, HOST, JUSTICE WITH JUDGE JEANINE: First of all, Laura, thank you for having me on. And my book, "Liars, Leakers, and Liberals" talks about Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and all of these people at the higher echelon of the FBI.

But you know what's amazing to me. This guy, Peter Strzok, goes before Congress, and in an unapologetic, defiant, sarcastic, smug way, says none of you Congressmen and women, you can't believe your lying eyes, just because I said it, I didn't mean what I said, when in truth, what he said as the textbook definition of bias.

So now we've got Lisa Page. And some of these congresspeople are more effusive about her, finding her to be more credible. That's no surprise. There was very little of what Strzok said that was credible. But what was so telling to me, Laura, was they said that there was a suggestion that based upon her testimony, the FBI desired a specific outcome.

We don't know yet because we don't have the transcript, and honestly, I don't know why we don't and we probably should. But I think it would be fascinating to see the two of them together testifying and finding out what her interpretation was and his, although with this is plain English. We can both read it and figure out what they were saying. They don't like Donald Trump, they didn't want him elected, and the insurance policy was to prevent him from getting elected, or in the event he got elected, making sure that he would be faced with some kind of investigation, which would be the basis for impeachment.

INGRAHAM: This is what Mark Meadows tweeted today after this behind closed doors testimony. He said "Remarkably, we learned new information today suggesting the DOJ had not notified Lisa Page of Congress' outstanding interview request for over seven months now. The DOJ/FBI appeared to be continuing their efforts to keep material facts and perhaps even witnesses from Congress." Judge Jeanine, your reaction to that? That's a wild revelation. I don't think we should have any reason to lie about that. She would be held in contempt if she didn't show up on Friday and continuing today, but they didn't tell her?

PIRRO: But Laura, this is part of what the left does! It's like Hillary saying "I was never subpoenaed on Benghazi." Sure you were subpoenaed. Who are you kidding? But we've got a Department of Justice now, Laura, and an FBI that is covering its tracks, that is more interested in protecting its own flanks and not being exposed than it is in confronting and identifying the truth. And unfortunately, we've got a Department of Justice run by a guy named Rod Rosenstein who was part of the swamp. He's part of the establishment. And so for them not to tell Lisa Page she was subpoenaed doesn't surprise me at all. You've got to clean house and that's the end of it, Laura. And I worry that it's not going to happen.

INGRAHAM: It's been far too long. And judge, since I have you on, I want to get your reaction on something else. A federal judge temporarily halting the deportation of family units who were reunited after being separated by the Trump administration. Is this judge, by the way, a George W. Bush appointee, overstepping his legal bounds? A single federal district court judge again halting federal policy in this regard. Your reaction?

PIRRO: And make no mistake, the ACLU is going to shop and find a judge who is most receptive to whatever it is they are looking for. But I love about this, Laura, is that the ACLU is looking for a one week delay so that parents who have been reunited with her kids can decide whether or not they want to seek asylum. Wait a minute. What do they want to say? Do they want to just admit they came here illegally and were not seeking asylum in the first place? If, as everyone on the left has been telling us, they are here for asylum, you and I both know they could have gone to port of entry.

Now the judge is buying into it, saying I'm going to let them decide if they really want asylum. No, they just want to come illegal, judge -- they either want asylum or they should be deported.

INGRAHAM: Everybody's got to go out and get Judge Jeanine's book. She is going to be on my radio show this week. We're going to have a much longer conversation. It's going to be a huge bestseller, "Liars, Liberals, and Leakers," "Leakers, Liberals, and Liars," it's the alliteration.

PIRRO: "Liars, Leakers, and Liberals."

INGRAHAM: They're all good. Judge Jeanine.


INGRAHAM: This has been a fun day. Just another slow Monday in Trump land, it's been fun. But I want you to tell us your thoughts about how you thought the Trump-Putin summit went, react to the Angle. I always love to read your tweets, even the nasty ones. It's fine, let it vent, let it all out if it makes you feel better.

That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the fantastic "Fox News @ Night" team are up next with a special encore presentation of Chris Wallace's exclusive sit-down with Vladimir Putin. Shannon?

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.