Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with International Feminist Attorney and McAllister Olivarius Chair and Senior Partner Ann Olivarius; Interview with Former Senior Adviser to President Biden Amos Hochstein; Interview with "The Heat Will Kill You First" Author Jeff Goodell; Interview with Climate Scientist and The Nature Conservancy Chief Scientist Katharine Hayhoe. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 02, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up, Sean Diddy Combs found guilty of prostitution
charges, but acquitted of most serious allegations. The significance of this verdict with sexual harassment lawyer Ann Olivarius.
Then, horror in Gaza, as Israel's deadly airstrikes continue a special report on the families left behind. But are we on the brink of a diplomatic
breakthrough? I speak to the U.S. envoy who helped broker another ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. Amos Hochstein joins the show.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are seeing episodes of extreme heat, which normally we would see later on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- sounding the alarm. Are scorching temperatures the new normal for Europe? I asked journalist Jeff Goodell and scientists Katharine
Hayhoe.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
After six plus weeks of testimony, a verdict in the Sean Diddy Combs trial, the jury found the media mogul guilty of charges of transportation to
engage in prostitution, but acquitted him of the most serious charges of sex trafficking and racketeering. Combs now faces a maximum of 20 years in
prison, but his actual sentence is yet to be determined.
The case featured allegations that he coerced women into sexual encounters with other men's, sometimes referred to as freak offs. His ex-girlfriend,
pop singer, Cassie Ventura, testified against him. You may remember that shocking surveillance video of Combs assaulting Ventura in 2016.
Ventura's lawyer reacted to the verdict in an interview with CNN saying that it wasn't exactly the outcome they had wanted and that Cassie showed
great courage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOUGLAS WIGDOR, ATTORNEY FOR CASSIE VENTURA: And so, Cassie was comforted in knowing that not only has she played a role in the criminal prosecution,
but that she has shined a light on this behavior by Sean Combs and many other people have come forward, not only about him, but about other people
in the entertainment world as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Ann Olivarius is a British American lawyer who specializes in discrimination, sexual harassment, and assault. She joins me now live. Ann,
welcome to the program. So, as we noted, a verdict reached on all charges. Sean Combs acquitted of the most serious charges, that of racketeering and
sex trafficking. He was convicted on two counts of transportation for prostitution. Clearly, a big blow for the prosecution. Your thoughts on the
verdicts?
ANN OLIVARIUS, INTERNATIONAL FEMINIST ATTORNEY AND CHAIR AND SENIOR PARTNER, MCALLISTER OLIVARIUS: Well, I don't know if it's a big blow for
the prosecution. We did get a conviction, and that's an important thing. It's a different cultural conversation now. You know, we have a defense
group here that's saying this a modern love story. And what are we to take from that? In a modern love story, women can be beaten and degraded,
humiliated, they can have sex in front of people and be forced to do that, and then told afterwards that even though they were abused, they loved it,
they wanted it? That seems a very odd way, an outcome to have and not a very fair one, and it's certainly not good for women. It's a bad message.
GOLODRYGA: A bad message for women, but what do you make of the defense's strategy here in saying this was a modern love story, not denying the
physical violence, obviously, as witnessed in that video, that horrific video from a hotel room -- a hotel lobby actually in 2016? And the fact
that they presented text messages between some of the former girlfriends of the Sean Combs suggesting that perhaps they enjoyed or consented to
engaging in some of these freak offs? We heard testimony from them suggesting otherwise that they felt pressured. Nonetheless, how do you
think that factored into the jury's decision?
OLIVARIUS: Yes, sure. I mean, they brought big, you know, claims of racketeering charges and when people hear RICO charges and things like
that, they think about mafia families and dark alleyways and back rooms. This a very different kind of case, and I don't think it's a modern love
story at all. It's about celebrities that live different lives and people are fascinated by these lives.
[13:05:00]
But you know, the question is one of consent. How can you consent to being beaten up? Is that something -- sure, BDSM, I guess you consent and that's
how that works. But this not quite that. I mean, you know, we know that, you know, Diddy kept these women until he was done with them. He's set the
stage. He said, I want you until I don't want you.
We saw when Cassie Ventura tried to leave, he was beating her up, kicking her in the hallways, and incredibly vicious. So, she went back to him. So,
the fact is that, you know, if you even speak to slaves many years ago, do they like being, you know, on plantations? Many would say, sure. You know,
they did that. It's a mindset. It's a way of being. How can you consent to those things when you actually have other choices?
These women felt they didn't have choices that were better, they were locked in, that he wasn't going to let them get free. Their lives would be
over, their careers, in Cassie Ventura's case would be over. And she'd also go up against all of these people who supported Diddy. But -- they liked
his money, they liked his power. And so, she didn't feel she had any power and consent herself. And so, she tried to make it work.
Is this consent? It's a very interesting, powerful question. Yes, a modern- day question perhaps. But certainly I don't see how you can have consent when women are degraded in the process of sex, forced to do it, told how to
do it, with whom they're going to do it, and be beaten up in the process. How can that kind of abuse be considered something that you can consent to?
GOLODRYGA: We see the courtroom sketches of Cassie Ventura as she was quite emotional, eight and a half months pregnant, we should note, during
her testimony, which lasted over four days period of time. It took a lot of courage for her to go up on that stand before the jury there and to detail
the harrowing experiences she felt and the pressure and the fear she says she felt while she was in the relationship with Sean Combs, that he always
had leverage over her and that she was forced to endure multiple instances of these freak offs, as they describe, and also physical and emotional
pain.
And then on the counter, you have the defense, as I noted before, bringing forth as evidence text messages from Cassie Ventura. And this what makes it
a bit complicated, and I'm wondering what kind of precedent you think this sets for future cases like this. Let's just pull up some of these texts.
Cassie Ventura from August of 2009 says, LOL. I'm just going up to change and put on my -- put my ring in. I just picked it up. It's always ready --
I'm always ready to freak off. LOL. In 2012, yes, I like those times. I love when we make love after. The last time was so good.
I mean, when a jury hears testimony like hers and then sees texts like this from the defense, what lessons can be learned for future prosecutions and
your takeaway?
OLIVARIUS: Yes, they're going to be tough prosecutions for any of these kinds of cases, of course. I mean, if you have a domestic abuse case, which
this certainly was, I mean, what do you do in that case? When women get beaten up? Still the law protects them, even if they love their husbands
and go back to their husbands and say, well, I need him. I want him, even if they've got tons of declarations of that written in texts and e-mails
and love letters, even so the law says, no.
This something -- it's a human issue. It's lower than humanity to go around and beat up women who are your sexual partners. It's not allowed. It's
illegal. It's not something we should condone or say, hey, you can say you want to do that, we don't allow that in our society. It's just completely
not acceptable. And that will have to be the standard. Otherwise, why with domestic abuse do we have laws to protect women who are abused in their
marriages?
We fought hard to get those laws, and a case like this can't contravene that. We are better than what this case has said.
GOLODRYGA: So, then why do you think, in hindsight, the prosecution didn't just charge him with domestic violence and perhaps the prostitution charges
of which he was found guilty? Because we know that racketeering can be a very complicated charge to prove in general.
OLIVARIUS: Yes, they brought a harder case perhaps than they had to bring. May have had statute limitations issues, other concerns. You know, the
video that we all saw of Diddy kicking her, hitting her, the brutality, the inhumanity that -- you know, the fact that she's black and blue and is
clear of that. And then he denies it afterwards and he buys up the tape. And until the tape comes out, then he is forced to admit it. But otherwise,
he's lying about it.
I think the feeling has been that this man has got a piece of evil in him, and he's really a very bad actor. And he'll lie and he'll say whatever he
wants to say. He's above the law. He's used to being uncontested. And so, people are going to do what he says to do.
[13:10:00]
And so, I think the people -- if I was devising what claims to bring, I'd be tempted to do what the prosecution did because I'd want to make sure
that I brought the most thorough case and that I captured all the indignities and the illegalities that Diddy has participated in and
conducted and instructed others to do.
GOLODRYGA: We know the racketeering and sex trafficking cases have been brought before power -- other powerful men. R. Kelly comes to mind as well,
and he was convicted of a similar charge. After this acquittal though, do you think, again, in terms of future cases, that this something that the
prosecution and the DOJ will look to when they are finding themselves in a similar situation and contemplating whether to bring these racketeering
charges?
OLIVARIUS: LoOK. racketeering chargers are always hard to win. There's no question about that. Even if you have a true mafia family, you know, and
you've got lots of evidence, they're just really tough cases. How this case was won, of course, is that they didn't contest to that really. The defense
said, we're going to go after the two women, Cassie and Jane, and we're going to ruin them. And that's why they put, you know, eight and a half
months pregnant. You know, here's Cassie Ventura sitting there for days and days being grilled and humiliated and asked the most detailed demeaning
questions. This went on. They wanted to destroy her.
And that's why people bring, of course, civil cases. You know, as a lawyer who does civil cases like this all the time, it's a much easier thing you
bring them, people's lives aren't destroyed. But as we saw, like with the Johnny Depp case and how people are handling these cases now, the people
who are defending these cases, they go after the women who are bringing the cases. They try to destroy them. That's what they do. And of course, that's
a tactic that will continue to be used.
And so, it does take strong women. It does take a strong, courageous personality to state their truth, stick by their truth, and you know, just
be able to get beyond it and not be torn apart, because the people who engage in these tactics, and they use them all the time as they did, as I
said, in the Depp trial and now here, I mean, certainly, they can be successful.
GOLODRYGA: And there was a lower burden of proof required in civil trials. Is that true?
OLIVARIUS: Yes, indeed. And you know, here, Cassie Ventura, within a day, you know, was able to get a settlement, essentially. There was some lead up
to it, of course, in negotiations. But you know, she got her 20 million and it was done. And it only, I think because of the tape that came out and
other things that happened that it became a criminal case.
But certainly, civil cases can get resolved separately. And you get money if you are aggrieved and have been harmed and you win your case. If you get
justice and you get money fairly quickly and you can start to heal, you can get the therapy, you can start to put your life back together. In a
criminal case, you don't get those things and your whole life is tornness under it. And you're, you know, generally character assassinated. And it's
really painful to do criminal cases. But the civil cases are a much easier way to go forward and a fairer way often.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Sean Combs faces dozens of lawsuits, claiming sexual assaults and incidents, this date dates back decades. Just this week, he
was hit with another $10 million lawsuit from a dancer who alleges that he was drugged and raped by Combs. Combs has denied these allegations. How
might this criminal verdict impact those cases or are the two completely separate?
OLIVARIUS: Well, they are separate. Of course, every case has to be looked at individually and in terms of fairness and justice, what's right. But
certainly, he's been found guilty. So, it's not like he got to walk off here. He is looking at 20 potential years in jail for what he's done here.
And will he get that? We'll find out soon enough. But that's a pretty stiff penalty, 20 years his potential penalty is rough.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
OLIVARIUS: And he's been found guilty. So, all right, he's a felon. He's a bad actor. And the jury has said, hey, this guy is a bad person. He's a
creep. This guy's up to no good. So, he is already been labeled that. So, here you go. I mean, good luck with all the other cases. You know, it's not
going to help him to have this verdict against him. He didn't win today. He didn't win anything today. You know, he's been found guilty of serious,
horrible crimes against humanity.
GOLODRYGA: And the fact that he is a first-time convicted felon, I mean, let's be clear, no one is suggesting that he didn't commit horrible acts of
violence, the domestic violence alone in the video that we saw was reprehensible and just stomach churning. But the fact that he is a first
time now convicted felon and the fact that a number of lawyers that we've spoken with said that the likelihood that he will be sentenced to the
maximum that these two crimes, the transportation and prostitution for victim one, and that was Cassie Ventura, and transportation to engage in
prostitution for victim two, that was a former girlfriend named Jane, the likelihood that he will be sentenced to the maximum 10 years or 20 years
for both is slim to none. Do you agree with that?
[13:15:00]
OLIVARIUS: Well, you know, jurors in this case were not sequestered. So, they picked up an awful lot in the news and a lot just like the Depp trial,
they weren't sequestered. You know, they heard the ongoing conversation, the cultural conversation going on around them. The judge in this case, and
to my impression, is good and firm. And so, the judge will make that decision about what would be fair. I don't think slim to none is
necessarily correct. It might be wishful thinking on the defense part and what social media being paid for by Diddy is putting out. Who knows?
But hopefully, justice will be delivered and you know, he's in trouble. No matter how you look at it, I would not be sleeping well tonight if I were
he. I'd be worried. I don't want to spend any time in jail or I think he doesn't want to spend any time, and he's a pretty ferocious guy. And those
guys in jail may not treat him kindly. And for the crimes that he's done, he may not get good treatment and, you know, he may be up to some bad acts
by other people himself. I'd be worried. It's a bad night for -- it's a bad night for Diddy. Absolutely a bad night.
GOLODRYGA: But it could have been worse, I think is the point here. And the fact that he was found not guilty on the most serious of charges, and
that is racketeering and of sex trafficking, that does raise the question and the concern that perhaps this would prohibit future prosecutions,
future cases of victims coming forward. What is your reaction to that?
OLIVARIUS: So, say you have different types of women. So, you know, we represent all sorts of women with different careers, from sex workers to
women who are, you know, running for -- in politics and esteemed family members. We represent anybody who's got a good case and we take those
cases. And I don't think it's going to deter prosecutors.
These prosecutors had a -- they're excellent. They have a long history -- all of them. It's a full female, you know, group who are prosecuting him.
They did their best. The culture or conversation surrounding this case worked against a longer sentence for them and longer findings of, you know,
guilt.
All right. But it depends. If you had, you know, the Virgin Mary, for instance, who brought a case of rape and sexual assault against someone
like Diddy, then, you know, who's going to be able to tear her as under, who's going to be able to assassinate her character the way they did in
this case? They won because they went after the women. They treated these women, Cassie and Jane, like they were terrible, terrible people. They
called them gold diggers and horrible people, when, in fact, you know, it's only. Diddy who made money on these women. He's the gold digger, but they
were able to get a narrative that worked for them and got a lesser sentence.
But I think other prosecutors are going to bring these cases. They've seen how to argue them now, and I think they're going to learn and do really
well. And depending on who your -- you know, your client is, if the client is a good person, and I think, you know, there's a lot of good you could
say about these women, but they got tornness under. OK. But other women may not get tornness under or men who get in these situations. because you've
got a few men going after Diddy also. It depends.
Character assassination is not a really good, fair way sometimes to get justice, but sometimes those people have a harder time in our biased system
to get justice. And I think that was the case here. But they still did do very well and they did get some measure of justice.
GOLODRYGA: And we are currently waiting to see what the judge decides ultimately on the issue of bail and whether Sean Combs can leave before his
sentencing, leave prison before his sentencing. Ann Olivarius, thank you so much for joining us.
And still to come, as Israeli strikes continue to cause devastation and Gaza, could a ceasefire finally become a reality? I'll speak to former U.S.
Envoy Amos Hochstein, who helped forge an agreement between Israel and Hezbollah last year.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Now, is a ceasefire and Gaza finally within reach? The signs could be promising. President Trump says Israel has agreed to the
necessary conditions for a 60-day ceasefire and hostage release deal, a statement confirmed by Israel. While Hamas says that it is reviewing the
proposal.
Now, for those inside Gaza, ceasefire can't come soon enough. People fear for their lives every day under a renewed Israeli offensive. On Monday,
more than 40 people were killed by an Israeli airstrike at a cafe near the sea front in Gaza City. Jeremy Diamond reports on the families left
devastated.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mohammed combs through the debris of another Israeli airstrike, looking for anything his
sister has left behind.
This the place where my sister was when she was killed. This her blood, Mohammed says.
23-year-old Nita was killed at this seaside cafe where she and other students and journalists came to connect to the internet and try to escape
the reality of war.
I can't describe the shock I went through. No one can describe the shock, Mohammed says.
This teddy bear was hers, a gift her friend brought her that fateful day. Now that and her purse are all that remain.
This was the chaotic scene moments after eyewitnesses say an Israeli missile smashed into the bustling cafe. At least 41 people were killed,
according to the director of Al-Shifa Hospital. Most of them women and children. The Israeli military declined to answer questions about why it
targeted the cafe, saying it, quote, "struck several Hamas terrorists," and that the incident is under review.
Just five weeks ago photojournalist Ismail Abu Hatab had filmed another airstrike from that very same cafe. Now his body is draped in a white
shroud. And his family cries out in mourning. Inside Ismael's room, his father Hussein recounts the moment he learned his son had been killed in
that cafe strike.
He told me, Ismael is a martyr. The words Ismael is a martyr were very, very, very hard on me. Unconsciously, I ended the call.
Ismael is the 228th journalist to be killed by the Israeli military during the war, according to Gaza's Government Media Office. The 33- year-old's
photos had been featured in exhibitions in the U.S. and Europe. But beyond his talents, his parents say the world has lost a kind person who never
hesitated to help others. And his mother has lost her eldest son and confidant. After she buried him, she says, she came directly to his room
and lay on his bed.
I remembered everything beautiful, everything beautiful, she says. Everything he had was beautiful.
That beauty, now ripped from this world.
Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Jerusalem.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, a tragic reality for thousands of families in Gaza who continue to lose loved ones as they wait for this war to come to an end.
And for the families of the 50 Israeli hostages alive and dead who are still being held in Gaza, an end to the war is the only way most feel that
they can be reunited with their loved ones again. As Liran Berman whose twin brothers remain in captivity told CNN.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIRAN BERMAN, BROTHER OF ISRAELI HOSTAGES STILL IN GAZA: The only thing that we didn't try is to end the war, to get hostages. Not to end the war,
just to end the war. We need the hostage. And to get all of 50 now is to end the war. This what Hamas said. And we didn't try this by now. We're at
a ceasefire with Lebanon. We have ceasefire now with Iran. Why is Gaza still a problem?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, could we be on the brink of a breakthrough? Our next guest is well placed to weigh in. Amos Hochstein worked in the Biden
administration on energy and security. He was born in Israel, and last year he brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, which at times seemed
like an impossible task. And he joins me now from Washington, D.C. Amos, it is good to see you.
You know the region as well as you do. You've advised the Biden administration on this. As we noted, you help broker a crucial ceasefire
that's still in place with Lebanon. And I want to ask you the question that that family member just asked about the fact that we have a ceasefire now
in place between Israel and Iran, a ceasefire in place between Israel and Lebanon. Why don't we have a ceasefire yet in place between Israel and
Hamas, in your view, and in Gaza?
[13:25:00]
AMOS HOCHSTEIN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, Bianna, it's good to be with you today. I agree with his question. It is tragic
that we don't. But let's remember where we are in January, November, the end of November of last year, we got to ceasefire with Lebanon. In just
less than two months later, we had a ceasefire with Gaza achieved at the very end of the Biden administration into the Trump administration, where
the whole idea was that you would release hostages, women and elderly, in return for a ceasefire and prisoners being released. And then, that would
be for 42 days and then we would -- there would be negotiations so that we'd have a total end of the war with the rest of the hostages being
released. But those negotiations never took place. And so, phase two never happened.
Now, we had six months or five and a half months of violence and death and destruction on both sides. And we're now back to, I hope, a place that in
the next several days, we can get to another ceasefire that is against staged. So, stage one would be 60 days where about 10 hostages or so would
be released in return for additional prisoners, Palestinian prisoners being released and using those 60 days to negotiate the next phase of the rest of
the hostages.
The problem is that we always get into these phases, and if there isn't a desire by Israel and Hamas to actually end the war and have a roadmap for
it, then we get stuck in the -- in slicing it down into smaller phases. So, the hope is that, I think, if we put the pressure, I think this -- we're on
the brink of getting the ceasefire. And then we have to put as much pressure as possible to get the final deal during those 60 days.
GOLODRYGA: So, as we know, PRIME MINISTER Netanyahu will be visiting Washington again early next week. President Trump said that he will be very
firm with the prime minister, and he also thinks that the prime minister wants this as well. Here's what he told reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How firm are you going to be with Netanyahu without ending the war in Gaza?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Very firm and very firm. But he wants it too. I will tell you. He's coming here next week. He wants to end it too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, you know, the prime minister very well. On the one hand, this could be interpreted, especially given the ceasefire in Iran, the huge
setback to Iran over the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, that the prime minister himself said has created new opportunities to bring this war to an
end. So, from an optimistic standpoint, one can say, listen, he wouldn't be coming unless there was a deliverable.
On the other hand, we know that there have been plenty of times he's been able to talk to President Trump and convince him that perhaps more is
needed and now is not the time, that more pressure should be exerted on Hamas. So, which camp do you think we'll see most likely come out of this
meeting?
HOCHSTEIN: LoOK. I think that this meeting is coming not because of Gaza. The reality is this meeting is a victory lap about the 12-day war that
happened between Israel and Iran, that I actually think is a 15-month war between Israel and Iran.
Iran attacked Israel by missiles last April, again, in October. When I was in the Biden White House, we defended Israel from those extraordinary
attacks. Israel then attacked Iran. And we know the results of that. So, the region has changed dramatically since the last time that Prime Minister
Netanyahu was in the Oval Office, and where the proxy -- the threats to Israel's security are essentially diminished to a point of not being
recognized.
So, this a moment now where there are very few excuses why you need to keep pushing ahead. The major support that Hamas had from Iran is diminished as
well, and hundreds, if not over a thousand Palestinians have died over the last six months and over 30 Israelis. So, this the moment.
I do believe that that he's sincere in trying to get to a ceasefire next week. But the question is not what is announced next week as far as a
ceasefire, that's only half a step. We then need to have the full agreement to withdraw from Gaza, to have an agreement on who comes next and to get
the rest of the hostages out. So, I'm probably in a camp of somewhere in the middle of saying, I think we're going to get a ceasefire, which Hamas
has to agree to. And as you know, Prime Minister Netanyahu is not the only one who's resisted a ceasefire, Hamas has resisted ceasefire for such a
long time. It's so frustrating. Even when Israel was agreeing to it, Hamas refused.
[13:30:00]
I think the pressure on them over the last couple of months is enormous. So, I think we're going to see a ceasefire, the question is, can you
translate that ceasefire into a permanent end and release of all the hostages?
GOLODRYGA: Yes, no doubt. And the Israeli foreign minister today reiterating that the war would come to an end if Hamas released all the
hostages laid down their arms. That is unfortunately not the situation we find ourselves in. And the core sticking point right now does appear to be
Hamas' firm demands that the U.S. will make sure that this 60-day ceasefire will ultimately lead to an end to the war, whereas the prime minister and
for Israel, they have long said that any sort of ceasefire must include the removal of Hamas from power and dismantling its military wing. Are we
closer to seeing that?
HOCHSTEIN: First of all, I think we are closer because of the damage that's been done to Hamas' structures anyway. And the fact that there's
support from the outside financially is diminished. But loOK. I think those are floating goalposts. And so, what does it mean to dismantle? Hamas
doesn't exist as a military -- operationally as a military wing, it doesn't really exist anymore in the matter that it used to. Israel is the dominant
force in, -- not just in Gaza, but in the region. So, this possible now to bring it to an end.
We have to be creative in giving the Israelis the self-confidence that they will be able to take care of whatever security threats come in the future.
But we have to be careful not to put floating goalposts of everything has to be -- all of Hamas has to be dismantled because that's probably an order
that is too tall to actually achieve.
So, we have to get something that allows the Israelis to say, this the new political structures in Gaza that will govern civil governance in Gaza. And
so, that's what the 60 days is for. So, again, I think we get a half victory, half measure, you know, on Monday or thereabouts, that allows for
the first several hostages to come home. And then, we have to work towards the end.
But even with all the victories in Iran, in Syria, in Lebanon, and the change, all that potential will not be realized for Israel if the war in
Gaza doesn't end. And I think even Prime Minister Netanyahu is starting to understand that.
GOLODRYGA: You think when he says there's an opportunity now after this war with Iran and now the ceasefire in place and the fact that he's now
saying that his priority is bringing home the hostages, that wasn't the language that we've heard from him over the course of the last several
months, if not since the early days of the war. Do you think that means that he feels more emboldened to take these actions unilaterally or with
the support of his own party? And we know the majority of Israelis because looming over all of this the status of his coalition. And we do know that
some of the far-right members of his government have since come forward and say they don't support this new Witkoff plan or the same Witkoff plan.
HOCHSTEIN: Yes. Which is not all that different from the plan that we had --
GOLODRYGA: The previous, right.
HOCHSTEIN: -- in January. Yes. LoOK. I think when -- even when you're talking about grave issues, such as bringing hostages home, which you can't
even imagine, you know, you and I both have families, can't even imagine going this long with loved ones in captivity. But even though these are
life and death issues, politics is always part of it. And there's no doubt that Prime Minister Netanyahu is now feels emboldened politically. He's
more powerful politically. He has more leverage over his far-right-wing. The question is now, is he willing to use that leverage and translate that
political power into policy decision making?
And so, there's -- I don't underestimate how much the politics of this are going to drive his decision making, and I think he's not going to make a
final decision. He'll be able to wait -- make a partial decision of let's agree to the ceasefire, get a few hostages, and then tell his right-wing,
which is what I think he's doing now, don't worry about the final deal. Let's first get this deal, this ceasefire, and we will -- I'll worry about
that later. Let's push it. This what he does mostly, which is delay things to later.
And I think he's telling the far-right, don't judge me on this, on the ceasefire, let's discuss how the end of war looks like, which will be done
during the 60 days. And if the past is prologue, then we know that 60 days will turn into something longer than 60 days. And how much longer? I don't
know.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
[13:35:00]
HOCHSTEIN: Do we just kind of let it go? And I think the big issue now is, what happens at the end of 60 days? Do you go back to fighting or do you
keep negotiating with -- and extend it? And that's -- I think that's one of the crux of what's delaying a little bit the announcement of the actual
ceasefire.
GOLODRYGA: Well, as a senior Biden administration official and adviser, no doubt achievements were made. We talked about the work that you had in
putting together the ceasefire that remains in place with Lebanon, obviously, that first hostage deal back in November of 2023 and coming to
Israel's aid during some of Iran's early attacks against Israel as well.
That aside, you also know there was some criticism that perhaps more leverage wasn't exerted by President Biden over Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Even former Defense Minister Gallant has said publicly that there were opportunities for a ceasefire hostage deal in 2024, in the summer of 2024
that didn't come to fruition. And that he thinks that Prime Minister Netanyahu sabotaged.
What do you make of some of those criticisms? Especially when -- I even had a former hostage tell me that in speaking with his Hamas captors, they
feared President Trump in ways that they didn't with Kamala Harris, who they -- they wanted her to win. I mean, by extension, she was part of the
Biden administration. So, how do you respond to some of those criticisms that more wasn't done?
HOCHSTEIN: Well, I think it's very easy to sit here today and say, oh, what could have happened a year ago? There was enormous amount of pressure
and I think that the conditions were different. We were -- Israel was dealing with being attacked by Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Shia militias in
Iraq, the Houthis militias proxy groups in Yemen, Iran itself, and Gaza. So, we had to -- yes, we had to support Israel and we had to put pressure
on Israel when it came to Gaza, but we also had to defend Israel. We couldn't leave them defenseless against missile attacks on a regular basis
from multiple different directions at the same time.
We had -- in the summer of 2024, there was an option and we were close to getting a comprehensive agreement. But Hamas also refused to put to come --
to the table and to agree to a ceasefire. It takes two to tango. And we had two moments where Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted a deal and Hamas did not,
or we were putting enormous pressure on the prime minister to accept, and Hamas refused.
And remember, the people that were alive then running Hamas that said, I will never agree to an agreement, are now dead. So, Sinwar -- the Sinwar
brothers are no longer there.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
HOCHSTEIN: And they were chief opponents to reaching a ceasefire agreement. So, there's a limit to how much pressure we could have put on
Israel to -- if Hamas wasn't willing to do an agreement, and that was the case. Hamas then ended up in a protracted conflict. Several of its leaders
have been killed. And I think that what the ceasefire with Lebanon did, it wasn't just about Lebanon, the notion in the Middle East, wherever I went,
I was told I would fail, because you could not get a ceasefire with Hezbollah unless there was a ceasefire first with Hamas.
And Hamas -- and Hezbollah lied to Hamas, and they didn't know about this deal. So, when we announced that ceasefire deal, Hamas' entire thinking had
to change overnight because they woke up one morning to find out that they'd been betrayed by Hezbollah and that Iran had essentially allowed it
to happen. Meaning, the cavalry from the east and the north was not coming anymore.
And within days, they returned to the table. And Brett McGurk, my former colleague, went out to Doha and we reached -- the agreement in January was
reached by the Biden administration to release all the women and all the elderly with a pathway to reaching a full ceasefire.
We're back now six months, just reaching back to that moment that we were in January. Nothing was achieved over the last five months, except for
death and destruction. And we're right back at the end of the Biden administration that deal that was achieved then.
So, I understand the criticism, and we could have gotten a deal maybe in '24. I'll always second guess that. Because the -- loOK. I met with hostage
families and my colleagues did, and the president, President Biden did regularly. It haunts me to -- every day that we could have gotten them out.
But I think now we have to focus on trying to get this deal done and making it stick so that we get not just the first 10 hostages, but we get all of
them.
GOLODRYGA: Amos Hochstein, good to see you. Thank you so much for the time.
HOCHSTEIN: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOODELL: Turning now to Europe, which is enduring yet another heat wave with Spain and England recording their hottest June ever. In Paris and 15
other French regions, a red alert has been activated. That's the highest warning over extreme heat with thousands of schools there closed. Melissa
Bell reports from the Eiffel Tower.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: All across Europe, scenes like these repeating themselves, people seeking whatever relief they
can from the scorching heat. It is yet another very hot day across huge parts of Europe. The big peak of this heat wave appears to have been on
Tuesday when records were reached in Spain, one town recording 114 degrees Fahrenheit, 115 in one town in Portugal.
Here in Paris, one of the hottest days on record. And the point about these heat waves beyond the toll, we know that two people have died here in
France as a result of the heat yesterday, two deaths reported in Spain as well due to a wildfire there. Beyond the immediate human toll, the fact
that these heat waves are having -- so happening so early, there are fears of more wildfires spreading over the course of the summer.
And of course, the main point here is that Europe is not adapting fast enough to the climate change that is happening faster here than anywhere
else on Earth. The climate is getting hotter in Europe twice as fast as it is anyone else, which has, of course, huge implications, not just for
tourism. The Eiffel Tower closed now for the second day in a row.
The point is these heat waves are happening summer after summer here in Europe. Temperatures a continent had not been used to when these cities
were built, and they need to be re-equipped. Of course, that can't happen quickly enough in many European cities with the death tolls that we're
seeing and the difficulty that there is for cities to adapt, for what we expect will be another scorching summer here in Europe.
Melissa Bell, CNN, Paris.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, as well as temperature records being shattered, hundreds of wildfires have broken out in Turkey, forcing tens of thousands of people
to evacuate. Hospital admissions have shot up in the Tuscany region of Italy as well. While wildfires are also raging near Greece's capital of
Athens. They are devastating scenes all the more so for how familiar they've become.
Every summer now, the world's facing increasingly extreme heat as the climate crisis makes itself felt. And yet, this the moment the Trump
administration has chosen to roll back on many of America's investments in clean energy and to double down on fossil fuels.
Let's bring in Jeff Goodell, a journalist whose latest book is "The Heat Will Kill You First," and Climate Scientist Katherine Hayhoe. Welcome both
of you to the program.
Jeff, let me start with you. You were just in the U.K., I'm told. How did you experience the blistering heat there yourself?
JEFF GOODELL, AUTHOR, "THE HEAT WILL KILL YOU FIRST": I was just in the U.K. And, you know, it was really a reminder of how poorly adapted Europe
is to these kinds of extreme heat waves. And that is kind of, you know, a metaphor for, you know, our world. Our world is poorly adapted to these
extreme heat waves that we're seeing and that sort of maladaptation is only going to increase as we continue to heat up the planet.
You know, there's a lot of talk about increasing air conditioning and things like that, but the complexities of adapting to these kinds of
extreme heat waves goes far beyond just plugging in an air conditioner.
[13:45:00]
GOLODRYGA: And as we've noted, Katharine, we've seen these scenes now in Turkey with wildfires in Greece. I mean, it's sort of an evergreen segment
sadly that we have these conversations every summer. Do you see any adaption in terms of willingness, let's stick to Europe for now, for
lawmakers to really crack down and take actions and put legislation into place and money into place to address this?
KATHARINE HAYHOE, CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: When it comes to resilience and adaptation, we do see actions
in Europe and elsewhere around the world because, of course, these heat waves also happen in the southern hemisphere, to make sensible choices like
limiting the number of hours people can work outdoors. We already know that these extreme heat waves are also affecting many sports events as and
outdoor events as well.
But the root cause of this heat is our emissions of heat trapping gases that are building up in the atmosphere, wrapping an extra blanket around
the planet that we do not need. And so, the most important legislation we're seeing in the E.U. right now is the goal to reduce emissions 90
percent by 2040. That is the proposal currently on the table, and that would have the biggest impact on the risks that we face in the future.
GOLODRYGA: But that legislation has already been delayed for months. We know there's tensions among politicians and countries there, and the level
of ambition and how quickly it will agree to an agreement in terms of reaching that goal. Does that worry you? Does that give you pause?
HAYHOE: It does. As fellow scientists, John Holdren said, when it comes to climate change, we have three choices. Mitigation, which is reducing our
emissions, adaptation, which is building resilience to the changes that are already occurring, or suffering. And he went on to say we're going to do
some of each, the only question is what the mix is going to be. The more we reduce our emissions, the less adaptation is required. And the bottom line
is the less suffering there will be.
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, Jeff, let's turn now to the U.S. and President Trump's big beautiful bill, which is now in the hands of the Congress. He's wanting
it to be on his desk for signature by this Friday, July 4th, he said he's willing and open to perhaps extending that, but the likelihood of his key
piece of domestic legislation, the likelihood of that being passed is relatively high. So, one would imagine that it's going to look much closer
to what we saw the Senate approve.
And I want to get your response to it, because, essentially, it's rolled back every single initiative and environmental protection investment and I
guess, idea process that was laid out in President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, it's rolled it all back. Just your reaction as a whole to
that.
GOODELL: Well, it's an all-out war on clean energy and importantly, on climate science. I mean, it's not just about boosting fossil fuels at the
expense of renewable energy, which has huge, not just climate consequences, but economic consequences.
I mean, China understands very well that the economic future of the world is going towards clean energy and electrification. And what Trump is doing
is undercutting that entirely, going back to 19th century fuels like coal, which was, you know, uneconomical for electricity, you know, 30 years ago.
And the idea that we're kind of pushing that again is just, you know, preposterous.
But also, the undercutting of climate science is -- as Katharine knows very well, is just devastating. I mean, the whole sort of operating idea seems
to be here that if, you know, we don't know about it, it can't hurt us, or something like that. I mean, they're whole heartedly, you know, disarming
climate information websites. They are defunding National Science Foundation. They're closing research centers. It's like plunging America
back into a kind of climate middle ages.
GOLODRYGA: So, while nearly every single Republican in the House and Senate voted to drastically scale back, as we know, subsidies for wind, for
solar, for electric vehicles, lawmakers did end up preserving tax breaks for some technologies such as batteries, nuclear reactors geothermal plants
and carbon capture. Katharine, just how much of a window does that leave open from your perspective?
HAYHOE: When it comes to climate solutions, there's no silver bullet, but there's a lot of silver buckshot that if we deploy it all together gives us
what we need to tackle this problem. And so, of course we know that geothermal energy, that batteries, that technology are a big part of the
solution, but transitioning our system off the old dirty fuels of the past to the new clean energy of the future is an integral part of climate
solutions.
[13:50:00]
And it's -- there's an economic case for this. A study at Oxford last year showed that transitioning to clean energy would save the world $12 trillion
by 2050. And the faster we do it, the more money we save. On the other hand, by the end of this decade, the cost of extreme heat alone will be
costing us almost $3 trillion a year. So, the economic argument for mitigation and adaptation is incredibly strong.
GOLODRYGA: And Jeff it did seem that all of this went into consideration in the Inflation Reduction Act, to give incentives, to give subsidies for
companies. Companies, by the way, we should note specifically in the states where -- the state where you are, and that is Texas. Texas has invested a
tremendous amount of money in green and renewable and solar energy over the last few years. And we know also that some local companies there, energy
companies and Wall Street in general has been really pushing back against this legislation because they know, A, already what boon this has been, the
fact that Texas has seen lower electricity prices, has had fewer rolling blackouts during hot summer months. And yet, we still see that this wasn't
a top priority for Republicans in Congress. So, when they're doing their post-mortem assessment now, what could Democrats have done differently?
GOODELL: Well, I'm not sure what Democrats could have done differently except, you know, changed the outcome of the presidential election for
sure. But you know, what's happening here in Texas is a great example of, you know, the larger dynamics of the energy industry globally, not just
here in Texas, but, you know, today on a hot summer day in Texas, about half the electricity on our greatest coming from renewable power. And that
is in the sort of, you know, ancestral home of the oil and gas industry in America.
And that's, you know, not happening because Texas has suddenly, you know, been taken over by tree huggers. It's happening because there's a lot more
money to be made in renewable energy, especially solar and wind and battery backup.
And I should add that these technologies, especially solar and battery backup, are well suited, better suited to extreme heat events than coal and
natural gas. When we have power outages, as demand surges for air conditioning during these heat waves, it's often the natural gas plants
that will go offline because they can't handle the heat, whereas the solar and batteries maintain -- help maintain a stable grid, keep air
conditioning running, and saves lives.
GOLODRYGA: And, Katharine, I mean, to echo that point, Ron Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon, he played a key role in crafting the clean energy tax
credits in the last Congress, said this in terms of the results of this bill. He said, it is bizarre that Republicans go home and see high skill,
high wage jobs in their communities, often for the first time with clean energy sources and they pretend it doesn't matter.
And when you talk to some Republicans, they say that when they were factoring in their top priorities, the environment, clean energy wasn't a
top priority for them. Maybe it was number three or number four, but there were other issues that they were fighting for. What does that suggest to
you?
HAYHOE: It tells me that we have not made the connection between what's happening, why it matters, and how it affects us. I think of this as the
head to heart gap. We know that clean energy is abundant all up the red states, and Texas is exhibit A on that.
We know that the impacts of continuing to depend on the sources of energy that have worked for us in the past are mounting year after year. We know
that it's already affecting us today. As we talked about with the heatwave, it's not a tomorrow issue. And we know that this not only an environmental
issue, it is not people or the planet, it is not the environment or the economy. There is no economy on a dead planet. It is not about saving the
planet, it is quite literally about saving us, us humans and all the living things on whom our own life depends.
So, when we talk about this, we don't have to be a Democrat or a Republican, we don't have to be a scientist or an environmentalist to care,
we just have to be a human being. And if we don't think it matters to us, it's because we haven't connected what's happening to how it impacts our
lives, the people, the places, the things we love.
GOLODRYGA: Our lives here in the United States, we also talk about the impact to Europe and we haven't even gotten to what this means for the
developing world as well. I will just leave this with a quote from Elon Musk in response to this legislation. Here's what he said, it is utterly
insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.
[13:55:00]
I would imagine, Jeff and Katharine, you would agree with that statement from Elon Musk.
GOODELL: Yes, I'm not --
HAYHOE: yes.
GOODELL: -- ever happy to agree with Elon, but I think in this case, he's right. It really is about the future. And it is about, you know, the Trump
administration kind of undercutting and destroying the future in order to elevate these industries from the past.
GOLODRYGA: We'll have to leave it there. Jeff Goodell, Katharine Hayhoe, thank you so much.
And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
