the story of churchill and orwell, just ahead.the 70th cannes film festival has drawn to a close with the coveted palme d'or one by a swedish star. won best actor. whereer: cannes is celebrity meets creativity. this is a place that takes still making very seriously. -- take filmmaking very seriously. year's winteris such a surprise. a swedish comedy causing something of an upset. the filmmaker thrilled to bits. >> it is fantastic, and i'm so happy that they chose a film dealing with this content. movie ando do a funny at the same time dealing with important questions. "the square," a satire about a museum pr stunt that goes somewhat all right, was described by the jury as a rich masterpiece tackling the horrific dictatorship of lyrical correctness -- political correctness. >> diane kruger. reporter: other winners included diane kruger for her role in a german film. she plays a woman trying to put her life back together after her family are killed in a bomb attack. aquin phoenix looked a little stunned when he was named best actor.

churchhill was the only conservative orwell admired and orwell actually names the hero of his novel winstonhill read 1984 twice, loved it, recommended it to people. i just wish they had met. actually, because they never met, for my own entertainment wrote a short little drama that was posted yesterday on the internet, having churchhill and orwell meet and what their conversation would be. >> joe's got yeah for you, joe? >> tom, this is fascinating. of course we've all seen winston churchhill as the indispensable man of the 20th century because what he did in the fall of 1940 but what about orwell, you talked about, obviously, churchhill saw the danger of hitler coming in the mid '30s even when british elite and british arrest toe crates actually were suddenly pro-german. why didn't orll fit into tt class, sort of the social strat ta around him? what made him every bit as cantankerous as winston churchhill when it came to hitler and stalin? >> orwell was a leftist but he was shocked by what he saw in the spanish civil war in the late 1930s. he was shot through the throat, nearly killed, came

the book is called "churchill & orwell."we're happy to have you. >> you're welcome. >> i've heard this privately but i've never seen it written by someone with tom ricks' prominence inside the military. is this going to rattle h.r. mcmaster? >> i think so. it is -- i understand what mcmaster is trying -- probably had in his mind when he came there and people like mattis and general kelly at dhs, too, right? let me get in there, they'll be grown-ups, if trump isn't responsible, we can contain the damage and if he is, we can make something of this presidency. but they're not having impact and, in fact, what they're doing is, you know, they say he's going to back article 5 in nato, and then he doesn't do it and it's all been more hurtful to american credibility when he doesn't do it. i think it's -- i grew up in a military family, myself, and i know that's a difficult situation to be in when you feel like you're in a political conflict. they should leave and let the american people -- and not prop this presidency up and let the

we're in a time of political disequilibrium not unlike the 1030s with orwell and churchill.heir great contribution they look for the facts and they were willing to criticize their own political allies. >> and orwell also sort of felt the poison coursing through politics. >> he came back and said the shock to him nobody was telling the truth about it. it was fake news. he expected that from the right-wing newspapers but was shocked from the left wing, also. >> evelyn, it's striking to me the campaign doubles down in the sense who are you going to believe, this liberal reporter or us. >> yeah, again, we have a real problem here with credibility and with people using and abusing the press. i think "the guardian" reporter had every right to ask his question and not get beat up. we need leadership providing good examples. that gets to what was being said earlier because clearly the president has not shown a good example to the people down the ticket. >> evelyn farkas, and one of my favorite writers, someone i always make sure to read everything you write, a new book on orwell and

this is like something straight out of george orwell. >> i never said we are in favor of break up the banks. >> this is bizarre. >> we never said we were in favor of glass stegall. we said we were in favor of a 1st century glass stegall. maria: that was treasury secretary steven mnuchin having a bit of a back and forth with elizabeth warren. let's talk about dodd-frank and what you would like to see in terms of deregulation. do you think that's necessary or do you think it's welcome in terms of economic growth as well? >> it's always a good idea to look at regulations. there are a lot of regulations out there. it's always a good idea to look at them and say are they accomplishing what they are supposed to accomplish? can we make them smarter and repeal those regulations that are not carrying their weight. that being said, i think that it's very important that we not forget what a bad experience the financial crisis was and how much damage it did to our economy. so a lot of things in dodd-frank have the purpose of making sure we don't have. >> the situation like that. i think it's very

that you compromise for no one, not for a loved one, not for a job, and not for a chance at fame orwell. >> whether the individual acts in the legal or private realm, one concerned dedicated person can affect what some consider to be an uncaring world. >> starting at the bottom is not humiliation. it is humility. but your head down and bulldog forward. >> the goal, excellence. peace,nda, plenty, protection of the environment, pride in pluralism. >> in just a few past commencement speeches from the c-span video library. this year, watch commencement 27, may on may 20, may 29, memorial day, and june 3 on c-span and c-span.org. >> monday night, a look at small town and rural broadband with shirley bloomfield. she talks about her organizations desire for broadband expansion to become a greater priority within the trump administration. she is interviewed by david count. >> what would you say your priorities are either in congress are at the fcc? sure thatwe make broadband is considered part of the infrastructure package? think, thet and i future is that broadband. it is the ability to bring

i talk in the book about donald trump entering into a new era, much like george orwell's "1984," where is just shattered. kellyanne conway called it alternative facts. donald trump all that matters is what he believes at the moment and what serves him at the moment. not only has he not been accountable, donald trump has no shame. and i don't know if the media has caught on to this. you can't catch him in anything. you can't shame him. he doesn't care, it doesn't matter to him. >> do you believe that when donald trump hadom come to the oval office, that he knew, alleging to what he said to the head of the fbi, asking for his loyalty, here's a guy that's never been held accountable for anything, everybody in his organization is loyal to him only. he is the king of the trump organization. he's done this, i suspect, many of times, to thousands of employees, do you believe that donald trump knew when he asked comey to take a loyalty oath, essentially, that he was wrong to say that to the head of the fbi? >> i think he absolutely knew it was wrong but donald trump doesn't care about right or

. >> this is like something straight out of george orwell.saying simultaneously you're in favor of breaking up the banks. that's what glass steeg al is. >> i've never said we're in favor of breaking up the banks and separating -- if we had, it would have been very simple. >> let me try it one more time. i have to try this one more time. what does it mean to be in favor of 21st century glass-steagall if it does not mean breaking apart these two functions in banking? >> you know what, i'd be more than happy to come see you and follow up and talk about this. >> just tell me what it means. >> had we -- we never came out -- >> just tell me what it means -- tell me what 21st century glass-steagall means if it doesn't mean breaking apart those two functions. it's an easy question or impossible question. >> it's actually a complicated question. >> i'll bet. >> no, it's not. >> not so complicated, riot? banks that take your money as a deposit were under glass-steagall not to do things that would risk your hard-earned money because investment banks do

we live in a time right now where we are seeing the playbook that everybody who has ever read orwellstands well. you repeat something over and over until it becomes a fact. you can love trump, you can hate trump but what you cannot do is invent your own alternate reality. how many people show up at an event is a measurable metric that can be seen, examined and proven. you cannot say one thing, have it disproven and go that is just our alternative fact, saying such a thing on campus was a brilliant move on her part. facts matter. facts are important. >> she said a free and open debate is the lifeblood of democracy. how ironic she would say this on one of these politically correct campuses. she talked about people denying science, denying things we see with our own eyes, she was talking about trump's inauguration speech and a lot of us pro-lifers who fought against her election wonder if she would take her own advice and look at an ultrasound. this speech full of anger but it was full of disdain for the people who voted for donald trump. she's not interested in listening for a second f

burma, now myanmar, where orwell once served as a colonial policeman, where he first had grown to despisety state became even more orwellian than imagined, in a nation where even having an opinion could be dangerous. >> i am very honored to be here at this university and to be the first president of the united states of america to visit your country. >> morning in yangon, to nearly everyone's surprise, there have been some huge changes in recent months. >> difficult time in transition is when we think that success is -- >> nobel prizewinning democracy champion, aung san suu kyi, after 15 years in house arrest, was released, now taking an active part in with the doors opening, our crew is the first to record what has been unseen for decades. meanwhile, this southeastern asian country of 80 million people is collectively holding its breath, waiting to see what's next and will this loosening of government grip last? of course, morning in yangon has always been about tea. it's black indian-style tea, usually with a thick dollop of sweetened condensed milk. you want it sweet this less sweet? v

this is like something straight out of george orwell. >> i never said we are in favor of break up the this is bizarre. >> we never said we were in favor of glass stegall. we said we were in favor of a 1st century glass stegall. maria: that was treasury secretary steven mnuchin having a bit of a back and forth with elizabeth warren. let's talk about dodd-frank and what you would like to see in terms of deregulation. do you think that's necessary or do you think it's welcome in terms of economic growth as well? >> it's always a good idea to look at regulations. there are a lot of regulations out there. it's always a good idea to look at them and say are they accomplishing what they are supposed to accomplish? can we make them smarter and repeal those regulations that are not carrying their weight. that being said, i think that it's very important that we not forget what a bad experience the financial crisis was and how much damage it did to our economy. so a lot of things in dodd-frank have the purpose of making sure we don't have. >> the situation like that. think it's very, very impor

this is like something straight out of george orwell. >> i never said we are in favor of break up the banks. >> this is bizarre. >> we never said we were in favor of glass stegall. we said we were in favor of a 1st century glass stegall. maria: that was treasury secretary steven mnuchin having a bit of a back and forth with elizabeth warren. let's talk about dodd-frank and what you would like to see in terms of deregulation. do you think that's necessary or do you think it's welcome in terms of economic growth as well? >> it's always a good idea to look at regulations. there are a lot of regulations out there. it's always a good idea to look at them and say are they accomplishing what they are supposed to accomplish? can we make them smarter and repeal those regulations that are not carrying their weight. that being said, i think that it's very important that we not forget what a bad experience the financial crisis was and how much damage it did to our economy. so a lot of things in dodd-frank have the purpose of making sure we don't have. >> the situation like that. i think it's very

. >> orwell the democrats think that it is much ado about something?s poetic. >> speaking of mood do so. >> know it, you are a poet. >> you are missing a big, big story. it seems to me on friday you get reports about back channel communication, on saturday and sunday you hear jared kushner had previously undisclosed contact with the russians. then you see adam schiff, the top democrat saying, you know what, we should do something about these guys. we are not sure about what he is telling and doing with the russians, that is pretty serious given that he is the president's son-in-law. >> what do you think he is doing? >> i don't know what he is doing. he is trying to jump to any concy are looking at the world and going, it is not 1977 anymore, it is 2017. >> that is not a reason to break the law. >> what law? back channels? >> no, the idea that you would do business with the russians in the base of sanctions, then promise as a private citizen, remember, not even in office, and doing contact with the bankers who have been putting money into the trump empi

this is like something straight out of george orwell. >> i've never said we're in favor of breaking upbizarre. the idea that you can say we are in favor of glass steagall but not breaking up. >> we never said we're in favor of glass steagall. we said we're in favor of a 21st century of glass steagall. it couldn't be clearer. trish: and yet there was a lot of this kind of thing. the exchange just one example of the grandstanding that goes on at these hearings. warren has sponsored legislation called the 21st century glass steagall act. and wile the administration has said they favor reform that would boost lending, a reboot. mnuchin was so theritici of the president's tax reform plan. meanwhile, the reform got by conservative billionaire charles coke who will launch a multimultimillion-dollar campaign to drive trump's plan through congress. it will simplify the tax code, reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three. trish. trish: all right. you can always count on elizabeth warren for some fireworks. thank you so much. >> that's right. trish: former federal reserve chairman b

but churchhill and orwell, can't wait to read it. looks absolutely fantastic. >> thank you. >> willie geist, final thoughts of the morning? >> it was all said here about montana, the votes a lot in early, but we'll see if there's impact and see what it means for donald trump and if it's a reflection on him. that does it for us. stephanie ruhle picks up the coverage. >> happy anniversary. good morning. i'm stephanie ruhle. much to cover, body slammed the republican candidate in a house race in montana accused of attacking a reporter. >> speak with shame, please. >> i'm sick and tired of you guys. the last guy that came in here you did the same thing. get the hell out of here. >> that was for real. while voters head to the polls today could the democrat come from behind and win. >>> there's a strained alliance overseas, the president meeting with european leaders right now, amid reports that the british are no longer sharing intelligence about the manchester bomber because too many leaks are coming out of the u.s. >> i will make clear

everything you write, a new book on orwell and churchill. qu"the rachel maddow show" star right now. >> thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. there's a lot going on tonight. we are looking ahead to a big election tomorrow, congressional election that really on paper ought to be a shoo-in. in this day and age, who knows? that congressional race tomorrow was already a big political question mark before the news broke tonight that the republican candidate in the race appears to have attacked, physically attacked, a reporter tonight on the eve of the election. the reporter in question here is ben jacobs who writes for "the guardian" newspaper. ben jacobs is an experienced, well-known reporter. i'll tell you just in terms of this building lots of people who work here at msnbc and at nbc know him particularly because he did a lot of campaign coverage over the past campaign cycle. in case you haven't heard this audio yet, i just want to play you the audio recording that ben jacobs says he was rolling on his own recorder when this incident

military international affairs for decades and his new book "churchill & orwell: the fight for freedomt tomorrow. thomas, great to have you with me. thanks for coming in. >> you're welcome. >> on this breaking news from the top of the hour, kind of adding a new wrinkle to the investigation into russia's meddling in the election and trump campaign's ties to russia, this subpoena, michael flynn denying the subpoena by the senate intelligence committee, now pleading the fifth, what do you make of this? >> i think ultimately general flynn is going to be seen as a side character, not a central figure in the troubles the white house has. i think he doesn't want to go to jail, but i don't think he has that much to trade with prosecutors. he really was never on the inside on the russia stuff. he saw putin, he dealt a bit with the russians during the transition, but i think the trump/russia connections precede flynn's presence around trump by years evened a decade or so. >> but then, you know, after those interactions, right, he's hired as the president's national security adviser. >> yeah. i m

military for more than 35 years and is also the author of the brand new book "churchill and orwell, thecmaster since he was a major, more than two decades you have known him. you say he is one of the nation's most thoughtful generals. obviously he's led troops in combat in two different wars in iraq. why do you think he should step down? >> well, when he came in and other people were coming into the trump administration, i thought it was a good thing. there was a sort of sense of having some adults in the room would be a good thing. but these people are matured, seasoned national security experts. but i haven't seen mcmaster improve trump's foreign policy. rather, i have seen trump degrade mcmaster. so i've now come to think that the saving grace of donald trump is his extraordinary incompetence and we should not be having people in there to help him look better. this president is a disaster. that foreign trip undercut nato, which is the organization that has kept peace in europe for 65 years. that's the longest spell of peace that europe has had in the modern era since the french revol

this is like something straight out of george orwell. you are saying simultaneously you are in favor of breaking up the banks. that's what glass steagall is. >> i have never said we are in favor of breaking up the banks and separating. if we had, it would have been very simple. >> let me try it one more time. we are going to run out of time here. i have to try this one more time. what does it mean to be in favor of 21est century glass steagall if it does not mean breaking apart these two functions in banking? >> you know what i would be more than happy to come see you and follow up and talk about this. >> tell me what it means? >> we never came out and said we should separate banks. >> tell me what 21st century glass steagall means if it doesn't mean breaking apart those two questions, it is an easy question or an impossible question. >> it is a implicated question. >> i'll bet. >> many aspects of it. the simple answer, which we don't support is breaking up banks from investment banks. we think that would be a huge mistake. again, i am h

what i would argue a deeply misguided war they are fighting in yemen that is not likely to end soon orwell, and is -- soon or well, and is costing a lot in terms of casualties. i am sure there is iranian art -- involvement in yemen but i do not know that that serves u.s. interests very well. i think the theme of the trip was that you ron is a major threat in the region, and the saudis -- iran is a major threat, and the saudis and israelis are happy to hear him say that. i wonder about such an overt u.s. embrace of one side of a sectarian conflict in a region. i do not know that that is particularly wise to throw our arms around the sunni bloc in the gulf and not do the same with the shia allies in iraq. trip, justlot to the because the people he is talking to her happy, the question is why? to the point of the russian investigation, we will see. i think there is -- let's separate out a couple things. it is the unanimous judgment, from our entire intelligence community that russia made a concerted effort to interfere in our election, which if you were a follower of russia's actions it shoul

shortlisted for other awards, the world's best nonfiction book in english on foreign affairs, the orwell prize for its most prestigious prize in political writing for the asian societies book award. the new book, "age of anger: a history of the present," called the first essential read of the trump era. a novelist put it this way. pankaj mishra selects -- john gray by delving into the past in order to throw light on our contemporary predicament, the neglected and dispossessed to the world has suddenly risen up to transform the world we thought we knew. pankaj mishra is meant by the royal society of literature. it's a great honor to have him, to have you, as aghast for conversation at georgetown. thank you very much for coming, pankaj. [applause] >> so at the very front of the new book you describe the circumstances which you begin to write it. in 2014 after friends and family members of yours in india elected a hindu nationalist to power and that your effort to write the book coincided with angry emergent nationalisms in india and other places, can you tell us all a bit how that came abo

this is like something straight out of george orwell. you are saying simultaneously you are in favor of breaking up tanks, that's a glass-steagall is. >> i never said we are in favor of cranking up the banks. breaking up the banks. >> i have to try this one more time. what does it mean to be in favor of 21st century glass-steagall if it does not mean breaking apart these two functions in banking? >> you know what that be more than happy to come see you and follow-up. >> just tell me what it means. >> we never came out. >> tell me what 21st century glass-steagall means that it doesn't mean breaking apart the two functions. it's an easy question or an impossible question. >> is actually a complicated question, many aspects of it. we think that would be a huge mistake but again i'm more than happy to listen to your ideas on it. you obviously have strong views and i would be happy to follow up and listen to you. >> this is just bizarre the idea that you can say we are in favor of glass-steagall but not breaking up the banks. >> we never said

this is something straight out of george orwell.ou are saying simultaneously you're in favor of breaking up the banks. this is what glass-steagall is. >> i never said we're in favor of breaking up the banks and separating. if we had -- >> okay. let me -- >> i spoke to warren and the secretary outside the hearing right in the hallways to try to see if there's more clarity, but both of them pretty much dug into their positions. >> i just want to be clear on this. you can't be in both places at the same time. you can't separate the two and keep the two together. >> i was clear on glass-steagall, i thought in the meeting. we don't support a full separation. i thought i was clear on that. >> he said he'd meet privately to discuss the issue, and the senator said she'd take him up on that. other things discussed is the treasury department is looking at long bonds of 50 years or more, and, of course, tax reform came up, and he's hopeful for something to happen this year, and reiterated he believes the economy could hit 3% growth. i also ask

this is something straight out of george orwell. you are saying smumently you are in favor of breaking -- simultaneously you are in favor of breaking up the banks. mr. mnuchin: i wouldn't say -- senator warren: we are going to run out of time here. what does it mean to be in favor of 21st century glass-steagall if it does not mean breaking apart these two functions in banking? mr. mnuchin: you know what, i had eab more than happy to come -- i'd be more than happy to come see you and follow-up. senator warren: just tell me what it means. mr. mnuchin: we never came out and -- senator warren: just tell me what it means. mr. mnuchin: to separate. senator warren: tell me what 21st century glass-steagall means if it doesn't mean breaking up the two functions? mr. mnuchin: it's a complicated question. senator warren: i bet. mr. mnuchin: there are many aspects of it. the simple answer which we don't support is breaking up banks from investment banks. we think that would be a huge mistake. again, i am more than happy to listen to your ideas

this is like something straight out of george orwell. you're saying simultaneously you are in favor of breaking up the banks. that's what glass-steagall is. mr. mnuchin: i've never said we're in favor of breaking up the banks and separating. if we had, it would have been very simple. senator warren: let me try one more time. we're going to run out of time here, but i have to try this one more time. what does it mean to be in favor of 20% or glass-steagall, -- 21st century glass-steagall, if it does not mean breaking apart these two functions in banking? mr. mnuchin: you know what, i'd be more than happy to come see you and follow up and talk about this. senator warren: just tell me what it means. mr. mnuchin: we never came out and said -- senator warren: tell me what 21st century glass-steagall means if it doesn't mean breaking apart those two things. it's an easy question or an impossible question. mr. mnuchin: it's a complicated question. senator warren: i'll bet. mr. mnuchin: there's many aspects of it. ok, the simple answer which we

is is ke something straight out of george orwell you're saying simultanusly yoare in fav of breaking up the banks. that's whatla-steagall is. mr. mnuchin: i'veever sd w're in favor of breaking up the banks and serating. if we had, it woulhave been veryimple. senator warre let me y e more time. w're going to run out ofim he, t i have to try this one mo te. what does it meatoe in favor --2 o glass-sagl, , century gla-steagall it does not mean breaking apt estwo functions in banki? mrmnhi you know what,'d be more than hap to come see you and follow up and talk about this. senator warren: just lle what it means. mrmnhin: we never came out and said- senator warren tell me what 21st century gla-sagall means if it esn't mean eaking apart those two things. it's an easy quti oan impossible questn. mr. mnuchin: it's colicated eson. senator waen: i'll bet. mrmnuchin: there's many aspects of it. ok, the simple ansr icwe don'suort is breaking up nks from investment banks. we think that would a hug mistake. but agn, i'm more than happy to listen to your eaon it. you obviouslhave strong views. and

this is like something straight out of george orwell.'re saying simultaneously you're in favor of breaking up the banks. that's what glass/steagall is. >> i've never said we're in favor of breaking up the banks and separating. if we had, it would have been very simple. >> let me try one more time. we're going to run out of time here, but i have to try this one more time. what does it mean to be in favor of 21st century glass/steagall if it does not mean breaking apart these two functions in banking? >> you know what, i'd be more than happy to come see you and follow up and talk about this. >> just tell me what it means. >> we never came out and said -- >> tell me what 21st century glass/steagall means if it doesn't mean breaking apart those two things. it's an easy question or an impossible question. >> it's a complicated question. >> i'll bet. >> there's many aspects of it. okay, the simple answer which we don't support is breaking up banks from investment banks. we think that would be a huge mistake. but again, i'm more than happy to l

house orwell case which came out of a lot of frustration we were having at the time.i think it's illustrative of a broader theme of what has happened it's a little bit of history. the way that the affordable care act came about if you recall was that the democratic majorities of the time really required 60 votes in the senate. and then when senator kennedy passed away and was replaced by democratic governor, or democrat to replace him, they maintained that and i think they were going forward the latter half of 2009 expecting that they would have a replacement of the same party so they could maintain that super majority standard that would enable them to come with no defections, control the final directive the entire way through and really not have any need to cross the aisle and talk to republican members. so what happened is, if you recall, senate finance committee purported out a bill that frankly i think no one ever expected would become final law, that a lot of drafting errors just endemic to the 2000 plus pages. there was a sense that the house, when it got its h