Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Opinions On Four Key Cases; Search Efforts Continue AS Death Toll Mounts; Qatar: No Direct U.S.-Iran Negotiations Planned In Doha; South Africa On Edge After Anti-Immigration Deadline Arrives; Manhunt Underway Following Bombing In Monaco; Head of Company Talks About Their Work On Reflecting Pool; Supreme Court Rebuffs Trump Effort To End Birthright Citizenship For Millions; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired June 30, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:50]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga. Zain is off today. You are watching the second hour of
"One World."
The U.S. Supreme Court is closing out its term with some landmark decisions that could shape American life for years to come.
In a six-three ruling, the court knocked down Donald Trump's effort to end automatic birthright citizenship. This means babies born on U.S. soil will
continue to be American citizens, regardless of their parent's citizenships' status.
In another landmark decision, the court ruled that states can ban transgender students from playing on girls' sports teams. Some 29 states
have enacted such bans in recent years. President Trump called that a big win.
He also praised the court's decision to lift Watergate-era cap on how much money political parties may spend with candidates.
For more on these rulings, let's bring in David Weinstein. He's a former U.S. state and federal prosecutor and former assistant U.S. attorney for
the Southern District of New York.
I'm also joined by CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein. Welcome both with you.
And, David, let's start with you. Yes, the president may say he got two out of three victories today, but it was really that major decision on
birthright citizenship that the president was focused the most on and, by far, the most consequential here.
It's one he's cared about for a number of years. They struck down his order to end it. And I want to get to what Chief Justice Roberts writing for the
majority said. He said, "The Constitution settled this question more than 150 years ago." His words, quote, "Citizenship was the right to have
rights. We keep that promise today."
How consequential was that ruling? And is it really any surprise that the justices struck down this case?
DAVID WEINSTEIN, FORMER U.S. STATE AND FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, let's go - - let's go with the easier answer first. No great surprise to me that they upheld the 14th Amendment. That's their job. They're supposed to uphold
their Constitution.
Bigger surprise to me that there were three dissenting votes here, but it's an important decision and he hit it on the head. Anybody born here is
entitled to the protection of our Constitution and it's been that way for 150 years. So, no surprise to me that they upheld the birthright decision.
What's interesting is the dissent that Justice Kavanaugh suggests that perhaps it's the way the Congress can get around that, but that remains a
story for another day.
GOLODRYGA: And, Ron, this is the third major Trump initiative that the court has blocked this year. Obviously, we recall the tariffs ruling that -
- that did not go his way. The Fed firing yesterday that for now Lisa Cook can still have her day in court. And now, birthright citizenship.
Is the court, in your view, reigning him in? Or are these just three separate losses? Like really, what was at stake here? Because a number of
people are saying it was the court's own credibility if they did not rule the way they did specifically today.
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. Well, first of all, I think on balance, this court has far more unleashed than -- than reigned
him in. I mean, the -- the decision on immunity from criminal prosecution really has set the tone for almost everything we have seen in the second
term, the incredible self-healing of Trump and his family.
Just this week, they gave him more authority. They basically overturned a precedent going back 90 years now, giving him more authority over firing
independent agencies, essentially eliminating the idea of independent agencies.
So on balance, I think this court has been much more deferential than -- than -- than a force of restraint toward Trump. But there have been places
where -- where they have been unwilling to go.
And I think, you know, if you -- if you look at this court, these Republican appointed justices, they often end up in a place that is pretty
consistent with the dominant view in the Republican Party, whether or not it is the dominant view for -- for Trump himself and his administration.
And -- and I think that gives you a pretty good through line, through these -- through these decisions, for example, on the tariffs doing something
that a lot of Republicans preferred and also on preserving independence of the Fed, doing something that a lot of Republicans preferred.
GOLODRYGA: And, David, though, sticking with this birthright decision, as we noted, Justice Roberts say the Constitution plainly makes anybody born
here a citizen. And that speaks to his questioning of John Sauer during oral arguments when he responded to John Sauer saying that the world has
changed.
[12:05:20]
The Chief Justice said, "Yes, the world may have changed, but the Constitution has not."
But in dissent, as you noted, Justice Thomas said, the majority repurposed the 14th Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights.
And Justice Alito called this a serious mistake and warned, quote, it preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country
illegally.
Is that a legitimate legal concern in your view?
WEINSTEIN: I don't see it as a legitimate legal concern. People want to couch that as some sort of a national security concern. That's one thing.
But the other things that they discussed in this opinion were the fact that when the 14th Amendment was created, and in the decisions that followed
right after, there were a number of people who were brought here illegally and enslaved them whose children became citizens.
So, this was not a new concept at the time that the law was written. So, again, I don't think it's a legal issue, but rather because more one of a
political or one that could be couched as a national security issue.
GOLODRYGA: And, Ron, this morning, the president, in response to this particular decision posted on social -- posted on Truth Social, a news
article that outlined how his efforts to reverse birthright citizenship could still succeed with legislation through the Congress.
Speaker Johnson, in response to this ruling, says that he's very disappointed. But even he called it a textualist, originalist view while
also going on to say that birthright has been grossly abused.
So given that, given how tight things are in Congress, given the number or even Republicans now who are willing to speak out against the president, is
there an appetite in Congress to go after this claim that the president says he still has the option to pursue?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, first, I mean, there were five votes that said that ending birthright citizenship violated the 14th Amendment. Kavanaugh held
on statutory grounds, but there was still five who -- who -- who were saying the 14th Amendment clearly protected birthright citizenship. So,
it's not clear what the legislative path is.
Ending birthright citizenship is significantly unpopular. I think the number is somewhere between three-fifths and two-thirds of Americans oppose
it. There certainly will be voices in the Republican Congress who view this as an important opportunity to rev up their base, which is showing less
enthusiasm for the midterm than the Democratic base.
I think the retirement of a Supreme Court justice between now and November might be an even more pointed way to do that.
But I can't imagine, given this decision, and I defer to David here, that this really leaves room for a legislative response as opposed to a
constitutional amendment, given that there seem to be five votes pretty clearly saying that the 14th Amendment precludes you from ending birthright
citizenship.
GOLODRYGA: David, do you want to respond?
WEINSTEIN: Oh, I -- I agree with Ron. You know, the suggestion and the sense with regard to letting Congress enact it, I don't think they have the
votes. I don't think it's an issue that they're going to get the groundswell support on.
But again, as Ron pointed out, if you want to amend this, amend the Constitution. And for that, I do not think there's a sufficient amount of
votes here in the United States for such an amendment to take place.
GOLODRYGA: Ron, let me turn to campaign finance and the decision there that the president has celebrated.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the old limits on party spending are, quote, entirely inadequate under the First Amendment. Now, critics say that this
decision is really just a backdoor around the caps on what donors can give to any candidate and that at first glance that this looks to benefit
Republicans more than Democrats who have relied more on grassroots funding and support as opposed to corporate support.
What are the -- the consequences and the real life impact of this decision?
BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Well, I mean, look, it comes at a time when we are living through the widest inequality of wealth since the late 19th century. I
mean, there are figures that, you know, the top one percent is more wealth. I think than the bottom 50 percent at this point.
And this simply allows that imbalance in the economy to have greater impact in our political system.
You know, John Roberts has been most consistent with -- with only very few exceptions. The census -- the question in 2020, the mail balloting accepted
after election day. Almost always his agenda on the court has been to roll back rules and restraints on a kind of election practices in a way that
benefits the Republican Party, whether it's gerrymandering, voting rights, campaign finance.
[12:10:02]
He, you know, has been a very consistent force pushing to undo federal restraints. And now Republicans, I think will be the short-term
beneficiaries of this.
But the -- but the big impact is that the inequality in wealth that we are living through that we haven't seen since the Gilded Age in the late 19th
century is now going to affect our political system, even more profoundly than it does already.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. This as the country has minted at least on paper its first trillionaire, Elon Musk, who has, we know, contributed and donated hundreds
of millions of dollars to Trump's campaign.
David, quickly after today, is there any limit really on money in politics in the U.S.?
WEINSTEIN: It doesn't seem to be. I mean, look, the cap went from 7,000 on these coordinated efforts now to over a half a million dollars. That's a
significant amount of money that can be given to a candidate.
The question for me is when they received the money, are they now beholden to whoever gave up to them? That was one of the questions they talked about
in the opinion itself. Is there a quid pro quo?
And how are voters going to react to that? Is that going to turn them away when they see where the money came from? Or because the money is just going
to be so great, they're going to ignore that?
I think it's an interesting bridge that we're all going to have to cross and one that may create some problems.
GOLODRYGA: As we noted, the -- the long-term political and legal consequences of these decisions now. We'll be discussing them for days and
weeks ahead as well.
David Weinstein, Ron Brownstein, thank you for your expertise. Really appreciate it.
WEINSTEIN: You're welcome.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Coming up for us, a U.S. delegation is back in Doha for talks on the Iran agreement. One key problem, Iranian negotiators are
not at the table. We'll explain, up next.
Plus, anti-immigration protests spread across South Africa as an ominous deadline for migrants arrives. We're live in Johannesburg, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: A rare bright moment in Venezuela to tell you about. Rescuers freed a three-year-old found trapped between slabs of concrete six days
after two earthquakes hit Venezuela.
It was one of several rescues that have happened despite the dwindling chances of victims surviving under the rubble for so many days.
Well, overshadowing those stories of hope, however, the death toll continues to rise. It's now past 1,700. And the World Health Organization
says hospitals are overwhelmed.
Mary Triny Mena, joins us now with the latest from Caracas. So, we have these glimmers of hope when survivors, against all odds are found,
including this child. But as we've expected, that death toll continues to rise. Where do things stand now, Mary?
[12:15:18]
MARY TRINY MENA, JOURNALIST: Well, as you said, the search -- search and rescue operations continue here in Venezuela, especially in the area of La
Guaira, which was the place most devastated and hit by the two earthquakes that took place in Venezuela on Wednesday.
This is the six days of rescue. And there are teams from all over the world that came to Venezuela to help with the Venezuelan authorities to -- or to
fight to -- the -- the situation to try to find, more locate more people.
Here, one of the groups that are working are -- works groups from Mexico, from the U.S., from El Salvador. And they are doing their best.
We have talked to rescuers over the last few days, and they say they don't give hope, even though the small window of opportunity they had, it has
passed, and they -- they try to keep working as long as they are hoped in the -- in the minds of the families.
They are now using heavy machinery in order to pick the -- the biggest pieces of -- of materials and debris that -- that there are left, in order
to -- to go deeper. And they are working 24/7 in the area.
Also, there are other stories to tell like the how the hospitals are handling the situation. They are welcoming, of course, a lot of injures.
And many people, according to the government, about 5,000 people, have been left homeless after these events.
I'm right now in Parque del Este, which is a public open park in Venezuela. And they are welcoming the people that basically they lost everything,
their homes, their belongings. And they are now living here.
This is a tent city in La -- La Guaira, in --in Caracas, but also La Guaira, there's a baseball camp that has turned into a tent city to welcome
these people that are sleeping here, getting some food and attention.
And they are also trying to get their sense of what they are going to do in the next couple of days or -- or weeks, because they are now empty-handed
with no home.
GOLODRYGA: Unbelievable. And they are sadly, we can describe them as the lucky ones, given the -- the number of those who have perished in these
earthquakes.
Aid is coming in from around the world, but clearly not soon enough. So much still needed.
Mary Triny Mena, thank you so much.
Well, rescuers in Athens, Greece, are searching for people trapped in an apartment block collapse. Four people reported trapped were found and are
safe. It is not clear what caused the collapse. The fire brigade said construction work was underway in an adjacent building.
And Iranian negotiators are not meeting face-to-face with the U.S. today. Instead, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump's son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, are expected to meet with Qatari mediators.
We are in a moment of mixed signals from both the U.S. and Iran. It has been nearly two weeks since they signed a memorandum of understanding. And
since then, talks on Tehran's nuclear program have not yet begun.
There is renewed tension over the Strait of Hormuz and fighting between Israel and Hezbollah persists.
Nic Robertson is tracking the story and joins us now from London. So, Nic, how much should we read into the fact that Iranian negotiators themselves
are not at the table there, that it is the Qataris that both Witkoff and Kushner are meeting with instead?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: I think it tells us that the talks are still going very slowly. That would be the technical
level talks. These are being described by mediators as technical level talks, not high-level talks.
The Iranians have said that they're coming in to discuss with the Qataris only. They're not planning on meeting with the American delegation, Jared
Kushner, Steve Witkoff.
They are saying that they're there to talk about a variety of issues in the memorandum of understanding, but also, they say, about the frozen assets.
Now, the frozen assets is also a point of contention that clearly, because both sides have expressed a difference of understanding, clearly, is one of
those things that needs deeper discussion.
Now, will that be a result out of the Qatari mediation here? Will they help mediate? The reason we -- we understand there's a difference of opinion.
Iran says it must have those frozen assets freed before they're going to discuss the final agreement, which is likely including the nuclear issues.
[12:20:09]
And we know the Vice President, J.D. Vance, when he was in Switzerland last week, said that the frozen assets were under the control of the Qataris and
the U.S. and that only those countries could say that Iran could have the money and the money would be spent on U.S. agricultural products. And those
agricultural products would then be passed to the Iranian people.
The Iranians, very quickly, pushed back on that. So, when we talk about technical talks, this is the sort of area bridging the differences, closing
the gaps where we would expect there to be discussion.
But the fact that it won't happen face to face, I think shows us how fraught it's going to be. And of course, this is just one small part, as
you say, of the -- of the overall memorandum of understanding.
GOLODRYGA: Nic Robertson in London for us. Thank you.
Well, migrants across South Africa are on edge as the country faces growing immigration tensions.
Anti-migrant demonstrators flooded the streets of several South African cities as an unofficial deadline for undocumented migrants to leave the
country arrived.
The June 30th deadline follows months' long series of protests, threats and attacks targeting South Africa's migrant population.
It is just after six o'clock in the evening in Johannesburg. And Larry Madowo joins us from there where protests are ongoing.
You were on throughout the morning here for us in New York, evening hours in Europe there. And as you see 6:00 P.M. in Johannesburg. Tell us what you
see behind you now and what's transpired over the last few hours, Larry.
LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, people have been marching throughout the day here in Johannesburg. We've been with one several groups
actually throughout the day marching through the streets of Downtown Johannesburg.
And it's 6:21 P.M. and they are just still on the streets where with the emergency services that have been tracking them throughout the day, the
emergency services and police have been behind the -- the protests, allowing them to essentially have the voices heard by making sure that
there's no looting of vandalism.
In the last hour when we were live on CNN, we saw some people begin to loot one garage and pull out paints in this place. And police quickly moved in,
used to fire rubber bullets to disperse them. Nobody was arrested, but they snuck behind. In fact, they thought one of us was the owner of the home
that were trying to take a statement.
So, a very professional way of dealing with any incidences of crime. That was one of the fears during these protests that they might essentially take
advantage of the situation to loot for vandalism.
And South African authorities assured the public that they would be safe, that today would be a normal working day.
That's not how it turned out. It's been pretty deserted here in the city. They essentially, these anti-migrant groups managed to convince most of
South Africa to stay home.
We didn't see any major violence. We didn't see anything out of the ordinary, apart from these secluded incidents. But I think the message, the
strong message from these groups has been that illegal migration in South Africa has gone out of control. And the South African government needs to
do a better job of bringing it under control.
Most South Africans have some degree of sympathy for these -- for those people on the streets. And they feel that there's too many illegal migrants
here. The borders are too open. And the South African government has not done enough to basically stem it. And now this has been a strong message
from them.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And this has been an issue as we've been covering the governments around the world have been dealing with.
Larry Madowo, you've been covering this for us all day. Thank you so much.
Well, authorities in Monaco have launched a manhunt after a parcel bomb exploded at a residential building on Monday night. Three people were
injured.
And CNN-affiliate, BFM TV, is reporting the target of the explosion was Ukrainian born businessman.
CNN's Melissa Bell reports from Paris.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A manhunt is underway here in France and in Monaco after a bomb went off on Monday night in the city state, not
known for its violent crime and normally a haven of peace.
What we understand, even as that manhunt continues, is that Vadym Iermolaiev has been named by Ukrainian authorities as being one of the
victims of this bomb blast. He's a 58-year-old Ukrainian who renounced his Ukrainian citizenship.
Back in 2019, he explained himself for tax reasons. He's now a citizen of Cyprus and was living with his family in Monaco.
Nothing for now from authorities on why he may have been the target of this assassination attempt.
What we do know is that he was sanctioned by Kyiv back in 2023 over allegations that he'd done business in Russian occupied Crimea, an
allegation that he denied.
We also know that he has a son who was convicted of fraud in Estonia, but left the country after doing a few months of jail time there.
[12:25:59]
So, some elements emerging about this particular family that of 58-year- old, Vadym Iermolaiev, but very little more from authorities who are staying very tight-lipped for now about what the motive may have been.
Melissa Bell, CNN, Paris.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome back to "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga.
The drama surrounding damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool isn't going away.
CNN's Sunlen Serfaty learned more from the man in charge of the fix.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the middle of the political tidal wave, this man is in charge of keeping water in the
Reflecting Pool crystal clear.
CHAS ANTINONE JR., PRESIDENT AND COO, GREENWATER SERVICES: We've never done a pool, but the water is relatively the same as the water that you would
see out in a regular lake somewhere, right? You're treating it for algae and bacteria.
SERFATY: How clean does President Trump want to get this project?
ANTINONE: I don't know the answer to that question yet, but since it was really blue last week, I think he liked that.
SERFATY (voice-over): In his first T.V. interview, Chas Antinone, the CEO of Greenwater Services, defended its patented ozone nano-bubbler, a new
technology that's costing $1.7 million and that the Trump administration is building as the state-of-the-art fix for the algae-ridden pool.
ANTINONE: Ozone is 3,000 times faster and 50 times more powerful than chlorine. And it's able to stay in the water, travel through the water,
find the toxins that it needs. That's why we're able to treat it from both ends and treat the whole pool.
SERFATY (voice-over): But the project has been plagued with other problems too, from the new blue bottom peeling up to Trump blaming without evidence,
left wing vandals.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The Reflecting Pool is so beautiful they tried to destroy it.
SERFATY (voice-over): Prompting Trump to announce they'll need to drain the pool again.
TRUMP: We'll fix it right after the 4th of July.
SERFATY (voice-over): Meanwhile, the small Ohio company has been thrust into the national spotlight for their role.
SERFATY: What's your understanding of why the original bloom happened?
ANTINONE: How it happened? I don't know. It could be -- some of it could have come from the pipes, could somebody have dumped some stuff in there?
Anything's possible in the middle of the night.
SERFATY (voice-over): In April, the company was given a no-bid contract from the Trump administration, bypassing a competitive bidding process.
[12:30:05]
The company's co-owner is J.J. Cafaro, a longtime supporter and donor to President Trump and neighbor living near his Mar-a-Lago club.
TRUMP: J.J. Cafaro from Florida and from Cleveland. He's a man who made a lot of money in Cleveland. Does a good job and a fantastic man.
SERFATY (voice-over): In 2001, Cafaro pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe Representative James Traficant and separately pleaded guilty in 2010 for a
campaign finance violation.
The Interior Department says, "The White House was not involved in the selection process for any contract and did not weigh in on the company
selected. Full stop."
And the company has also tried to distance itself from Cafaro, saying, "He is an Ohio-based businessman who invested in the Ohio-based company after
the owners showed him research done on local Ohio bodies of water."
A spokesperson for the company said he has no involvement in the day-to-day operations.
Earlier this month, Cafaro defended his company's technology, saying he believes the public scrutiny over the Reflecting Pool is from people who
don't seem to like Trump.
SERFATY: And there has been some speculation that the Trump administration potentially compounded some of the problems down here at the Reflecting
Pool.
There was a 24-hour period of time where the temporary nano-ozone bubblers were removed from the Reflecting Pool. That was at the request of the
National Park Service.
At the same time, the president was hosting a large photo op down here at the National Mall for the UFC championship.
Now, the company confirms that the permanent ozone nano-bubbler technology has been installed and it actually is off of the Reflecting Pool just over
my shoulder in a pump house off the Reflecting Pool.
Sunlen Serfaty, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: All right. Now, to our top story. Sticking in Washington, the last day of its term. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued one of its most
highly anticipated and consequential rulings of the year. The court blocked Donald Trump's effort to abolish birthright citizenship and validating an
executive order that was a key part of the president's agenda.
Birthright citizenship considered one of America's bedrock principles as a right that's been enshrined in the constitution for more than 150 years.
In the last few minutes, President Trump posted to social media that he now wants Congress to work on ending birthright citizenship.
In a separate decision that favored the president, the court ruled to allow states to ban transgender athletes from playing on girls' sports teams.
The conservative majority also loosened restrictions on political campaign finance, striking down limits on party spending.
CNN's chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic was in the court today for decisions and joins me now.
And, Joan, we had largely been expecting this decision on birthright citizenship, specifically Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the
majority, saying the constitution settled his question more than 150 years ago.
I'm quoting him, citizenship was the right to have rights. We keep that promise today. But then three of the court's conservative justices
dissented and Justice Alito writing on his own called this a serious mistake.
Did anything in the dissensions there surprise you, Joan?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Yes. Even -- first of all, it's wonderful to see you, and you're right to emphasize the whole idea of
American identity because this has been such a -- a guarantee that its foundation -- foundational that America is splitting off from Britain.
And the chief justice said today that it was foundational as an -- an English common law also. So it's just a lot of centuries of history behind
the guarantee that any child born here in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen.
I think the split was important because this was such a radical idea that President Trump had put forth. Yes, it was the centerpiece of his anti-
immigration program, but it was one that had not been promoted, you know, before.
He -- this -- this burst on the scene, as I said, it was just -- it had no lower court judge had ever accepted it. And then to have three justices
break off in dissent. And frankly, a fourth justice from the majority, Brett Kavanaugh, tried to give those who oppose birthright citizenship a
pathway to curtail it in some way.
So those were a surprise. I have to say that the chief, during his reading of the opinion really tried to act as if this was a straightforward matter,
that there's no question here. He stressed from the bench today, we break no new ground. He kept his comments short. His actual written opinion was
only 26 pages.
But then Justice Clarence Thomas, who took the lead for the dissenters who you've mentioned here, he wrote 91 pages to say how he believes that the --
this interpretation of a guaranteed birthright citizenship really flies in the face of the history of the 14th Amendment.
[12:35:10]
So, you know, a lot of dissension. And, you know, this court has grown more conservative by the years. And, you know, maybe this is a sign of what
could be to come.
But the chief really wanted to put that to an end. And I think the way he grounded the opinion just not -- not just in history but in foundational
constitutional texts and past Supreme Court rulings.
And in 1898, the justices, you know, that long ago had this question came up -- come up and said, indeed the 14th amendment protect anyone born here
and guarantees the right of citizenship.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Which is I think why even Speaker Johnson, while saying that he was disappointed by this decision calls the ruling a textualist
originalist view.
Joan Biskupic, always good to see you. I should have prefaced with that welcome. Thank you so much for your expertise and for breaking everything
down for us --
BISKUPIC: Sure.
GOLODRYGA: -- as brilliantly as you always do. Thank you.
BISKUPIC: Thanks.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Now, to our favorite segment the last few weeks and we're talking the World Cup Mondays. World Cup knockouts went down to the
wire with two do-or-die penalty shootouts and two European powerhouses ejected from the tournament.
Morocco overcame the Netherlands three goals to two after a riveting series of penalty kicks. An absolutely heart-wrenching result for the Dutch.
And earlier, Paraguay versus Germany also went down to penalty kicks Paraguay eliminated the four-time champs, four-three. The heavily favored
Germans thought that they had scored the winning goal and extra time, but it was then overturned after review.
And Brazil survived a surprisingly coach -- close match against Japan, coming from behind to narrowly win, two to one. The Samurai Blue held the
lead at the half, but the Brazilians answered with an equalizer before scoring again deep into stoppage time.
Well, Norway fans are in Dallas Texas with their oars, metaphorically, in hand ready to row two victory. Erling Haaland side to -- is set to clash
with Ivory Coast at the top of the hour in a bid to reach the last 16 of the World Cup.
Then tournament favorites, France will face Sweden in New Jersey before Ecuador brave the fanfare and Mexico City to take on the co-hosts.
Staying across all of the action is CNN's Don Riddell. Don, I don't know that if it was a late night for you staying up. I didn't say it for the end
of the Morocco game. But overall, the takeaway yesterday what was a significant upset for Europe.
It was great to see those celebrations in Paraguay, the underdogs, really seemed to be proving themselves, especially when it comes down to these
penalty kicks.
DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Yes. Good to see you, Bianna. It was a late- night watching it and enjoying it. And it was an early start to get back here into the studio to talk about it. And I suspect that's how my next two
or three weeks are going to look, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
Yesterday was absolutely extraordinary. We've only had four games so far in the round of 32. And they've all gone down to the wire. I mean, quite
extraordinary goals that meant something have been scored in the 92nd, 96th, 91st minutes, as you say two of them going down to penalty shootouts.
I don't know where to start. Let's -- I mean let's start with the late one, shall we, with the -- the -- the Dutch crashing out to Morocco. The
Netherlands were winning that game until that 91st minute header from Issa Diop.
And just an absolute gut punch for the Dutch who have a bit of previous when it comes to shootouts. And the World Cup, they have crashed out of
this tournament no less than four times fire, the agony, the trauma of a penalty shootout.
These things are amazing for a neutral. They're great when your teams win them. They're a nightmare when they don't.
And we should -- we should mention the guy that's called the winner for Morocco in that shootout. He plays in the Netherlands. He celebrated as if
he might not ever be going back there. So that was a great story though, a great story.
And we also saw Germany crashing out to Paraguay. Germany top their group, but they've not been brilliant since winning the tournament in 2014. They
haven't even made it out of the group stage in 2018 and 2022. So, I think their fans were fearing the worst. If they hadn't gone out to Paraguay,
they probably would have been taken apart by France in the next round. So maybe it was just as well that they lost this game.
[12:40:03]
But this is a team that has never lost a penalty shootout in the World Cup. They were always so reliable in that particular crucible at the end of the
game, but not yesterday.
And Paraguay just another, just amazing fairy tale story of this tournament. The government gave everybody in Paraguay the day off. It's a
national holiday to celebrate. Let's see if they can keep their run going now.
GOLODRYGA: And this is the Paraguay team that the U.S. team beat earlier in the competition as well. So not a great night for German fans, I agree, but
I love looking at these images in Paraguay as they were watching in real time as their team was celebrating.
Let's talk about today. Norway will soon make their bid to be in the last 16. So -- so as well as France. And we also know co-hosts in Mexico here.
Could there be more surprises?
RIDDELL: Given what we've seen so far, sure. Yes. I don't think you can take anything for granted, especially not these days. Because what we have
seen over the last few weeks, not just the last kind of 24, 48 hours, but a lot of these teams, they're just so much better now.
It's an expanded World Cup. There's more teams in it, 12 more than -- than in previous years. But there's a lot of really, really good teams. And over
90 or 120 minutes and they're with penalties, literally anything can happen.
It's -- it's hard to call these games. I mean, Norway should be really, really fresh, because they basically played their B team in the last group
stage game against France.
Erling Haaland rested for that game. So, they will come back, raring to go, chomping at the bit. Ivory Coast are no mugs though. So, let's see African
teams doing really, really well at this World Cup.
France, Sweden, I think you'd probably give that to France, especially the way they're playing. Remember, they've made it to the last two finals. They
won in 2018. They only lost to Argentina four years ago and Qatar on penalties in that final. And they have looked irresistible so far. Ousmane
Dembele, Kylian Mbappe are both banging in the goals.
And then I think Mexico against Ecuador in Mexico City should be an absolute thriller. Perhaps, Mexico have home advantage. They've looked
great so far. They've won all three games in their group. They haven't even conceded a goal yet.
But Ecuador can spring some surprises. We saw what they did to Germany at the end of their group phase. So, I think that will be another great game.
And so many of these just too close to call.
GOLODRYGA: It's been a wonderful World Cup so far. Sadly, we've got this massive heat wave that's going to be blanketing much of the U.S. in the
next few days. So, it's going to be a tough one.
But we'll all be watching Don Riddell. There are worse assignments, I would imagine, than staying up late watching these riveting soccer games.
RIDDELL: It could be worse.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Thank you so much.
RIDDELL: All right.
GOLODRYGA: All right. That does it for "One World" today. I'm Bianna Golodryga. I'll be back in about 15 minutes time with "Amanpour." "African
Voices" is coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(AFRICAN VOICES)
END
