0 as a geopolitical showdown. cnn's don is in qatar. what were some of the highlights of the u.s. win? >> reporter: jake, well, there weren't many highlights, it was a pretty tense affair, but the main thing is that christian scored the winning goal, and that's taken the united states through to their first knockout game since 2019. you've referenced the buildup to this game, how tense it was, it was interesting watching the iranian players, again, during the anthem. they appeared to mouth the national anthem. remember, in their first game they didn't even sing it. and of course, pulisic is the biggest star in the american team. they were dominating possession in the first half, struggling to find a way through. but he really put his body on the line to get the ball over the line for the americans. it was a wonderful goal. playing the ball in with a header. pulisic getting it into the back of the net. he was hurt as a result of that. he didn't come back after the second half. we don't know what his condition is, but clearly american fans will be worried about their star man. >> yeah, of course. what is next for the u.s. soccer team? >> reporter: so they're into the knockout round, as i say. the netherlands is the team they will play next. the netherlands winning group a, team usa finishing second in group b. so that is potentially a tough, tough game for them. but this american team has shown that they are resilient. they're one of the younger sides in the competition. the fact that they've been able to come through this game with all of the speculation and all the kind of adversity that's been thrown at them and the political angles that have been discussed. they managed to stick to the task and get this done. this team is very hard to score against. they've only conceded one goal in the tournament. that stands them in very good stead. the problem is they don't score many goals either. they know what they're doing so far, that's going to be a great game saturday. >> don, thank you so much. appreciate it. joining us now to discuss, linltdsy, a former member of the u.s. women's soccer team which played in the 2007 world cup. she's a two-time olympic gold medallist. thanks for joining us. the iranian players played under intense pressure today. this came after the players refused to sing the national anthem at the match against england last week. do you think this could have played a role in the team's performance today? >> i think at this level it's important to -- you hear a lot of the things going on behind the scenes, but you also have a job to do when you step out on that pitch. and i thought today both teams did an excellent job of playing a very, very good match, bringing it all, but also in a respectful manner. i also think it's important to note that the world cup can be an example of how sport can unite countries and cultures but also be a catalyst for change. and so by seeing these things and by speaking about it, hopefully it can be a catalyst for change. >> yeah, i mean politics has been all over this world cup, and not just the iranians. american team captain tyler adams faced a grilling from an iranian, quote,unquote, journalist about his pronunciation of iran and about racial discrimination in the u.s. he was barely asked about soccer. have you ever seen such a politically charged soccer match before? >> well, yes, i have. but i also think it's important to understand that human rights has been at the forefront of this world cup from the get go. so understanding that players have a platform, especially at the world cup, it's a massive stage, for their voices to be heard and for them to be able to hopefully bring about change if needed. so again, i respect all of the things going on off the field, but i also was excited to be able to watch a match today of that caliber and two teams that were truly fighting to stay in the tournament. >> and obviously the u.s. women's team that you were a member of has faced intense national and political pressure both on and off the soccer field, including the fight for equal pay, investigations into abuse by coaching staff. is this the kind of attention both men and women soccer players should be prepared to endure when one agrees to play for the country's national soccer team? >> i don't think you're prepared to endure these things. unfortunately, i think these things have come about. but if you look at the fight for equal pay for women, i mean, that started way back when. that started from people who paved the way before me back in 1999 and that era. so again, it takes time for things to change. and you have to stay the course. and you have to invest. and again, you have to be united to serve as that catalyst for change, it's an incredible honor, but it also comes with that responsibility to keep the ball rolling until you see that change, regardless of what the situation is. >> all right, lindsay, thank you. i'd like to bring in an iranian activist and journalist. how do you feel watching the u.s. beat iran? >> i think, jake, this is the first time you see smile on my face as well, no? this is actually that iranian people feel. you boent believe me in the city, the hometown of maw maw is a mahsa amina. from that city people were celebrating from the moment that the u.s. football team got a goal against the islamic national football team. at the same time, the people are getting killed in the streets. teenagers are getting killed. and they believe that iranian regime using sport to normalize its murderers, its killing, and torturing. cnn actually broke a story that women are being raped in iranian prison. you know, i was actually listening to lindsay, the female athlete, the u.s. athletes, i just wanted to ask a simple question -- if it was not the women of iran, if it was the women of united states of america being kicked out from stadiums just because of being women, simply because of being women, what would have been her reaction? what would have been the reaction of fifa? >> right. >> honestly, now we don't see that this football team representing us, half of the population, iranian women, are not even allowed to go to a stadium. to that is why i'm calling on the rest of the world to be the voice of iranian people and see that how iranian people are celebrating the u.s. victory. >> that's interesting that you don't see the team as symbolic of the iranian people because, obviously, last week after the iranian players refused to sing the national anthem, iran's supreme leader threatened to torture or imprison their player's family. they sang it today. is that normal behavior for the ayatollah to threaten families if people don't show the kind of nationalism he wants? >> jake, the islamic republic does everything to put pressure on people to remain silent. you see that many teenagers, many schoolgirls, their family members are forced to go on tv to denounce their children who got killed in iran protests. of course they put pressure on athletes as well, but they can choose -- like now many well known athletes like ali lives in iran, one of the best football players in the history of iran is now standing with the people of iran. another, he got arrested. he is the voice of iranian people. so for that i have to say that we have to credit to iranian people clearly saying that the islamic republic cannot use a sport to normalize its murders and gender apartheid regime. >> good to see you as always. breaking news now. the jury has reached a verdict in the seditious conspiracy trial for the oath keepers group. sarah is live, what do we know? >> reporter: we've got two reporters inside, hannah and holmes, both sending out information to me. that's how i'm getting it at this point. we have now heard from the judge, who said we received a note from our jury that simply says verdict reached. that is from the judge. we know that there are several attorneys, of course, from the defense that are there, that one of the attorneys still has not made it into the courtroom, but all the defendants have now entered into the courtroom. the judge then repeated that there is a jury that has -- the jury has reached a verdict. and so we are waiting to hear what that verdict is. there are quite a few charges, so this will take a bit of time because for each and every charge they have to determine which person is or is not guilty of the charge. and so that's why this will take a little bit of time. not all of the defendants, and there are five of them, are charged with the same things. some are charged with fewer things. some are charged with the full ten. so we will be waiting to hear each and every charge for each and every defendant in this case, and jake, as you know, each defendant in this case has their own story about what they say happened. they have their own defense in this case, and they've put those cases on throughout the past seven weeks of testimony, jake. >> interrupt you for a second, because this is breaking news, and we do understand that stewart rhodes, the ring leader of the oath keepers, has been found guilty of seditious conspiracy. stewart rhodes, the leader of the oath keepers, has been found guilty of seditious conspiracy, sara. >> reporter: that's right. and basically what the jury looked at there is they looked at a couple of different things. first it was like do you find that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt there was the existence of a conspiracy charge in count one. that conspiracy charge was seditious conspiracy, and they had to determine, one, was the goal to oppose by force the authority of the government, of the united states, and two, to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the united states. this is huge. the government, the jury says, has proven its case against the founder of the oath keepers, elmer stewart rhodes iii. he has argued that basically there was no plan to do so but that he believed neither joe biden nor president donald trump, who he clearly backed, won the election, because he felt like it was unconstitutional. and that's what he told the jury. well, the jury did not buy it. and this is a very big win that cannot be understated for the prosecution. the jury has come back and said that in the charge of seditious conspiracy elmer stewart rhodes iii is guilty, and we are waiting on the next few people because now they'll go to the next four people who are charged with this same charge, which comes, by the way, with an up to 20-year maximum sentence. a maximum prison sentence of 20 yours. this is a big deal and a big win for the government, jake? >> sara, stick around, we need more reporting from you on the other four. there are obviously other charges, but as you note, this is a big deal. the justice department getting a guilty verdict in the seditious conspiracy trial of at least we have the verdict for stewart rhodes, the leader of the oath keepers, who has been found guilty of seditious conspiracy. what does that mean? let's bring in ellie, julia, and ronato. ellie, let me start with you. what does this mean to the average man, woman, child walking down the street, an oath keep has been found guilty of seditious conspiracy, which we've been saying for months is not an easy charge to get a guilty verdict of, what does this mean? >> jake, this is a historic verdict. this is a monumental victory for the justice department. as you said, charges of seditious conspiracy are exceedingly serious and exceedingly rare. before these january 6th cases it has been over a decade since doj tried to charge seditious conspiracy, and that chase was unsuccessful. you have to go back two decades plus to find a jury trial in the federal system that resulted in a conviction for seditious conspiracy. and that involved a foreign terrorist organization plotting attacks on a series of landmarks in new york city. so this is extraordinarily rare, and it really vindicates doj's theory here. seditious conspiracy means to plot to use force to overthrow the government or to interfere with a lawful function of government, here the counting of electoral votes by congress, it doesn't get more fundamental for our democracy than that. so this is a huge win for doj and really a vindication of their legal theory. >> i want to bring in ronato and jewel yet juliet in a second. so sara, you brought us the news, seditious conspiracy charges, stewart rhodes, the leader of the oath keepers, has been found guilty of seditious conspiracy. what about the other four defendants? >> reporter: okay, so we have just gotten the verdict for the other four defendants in the seditious conspiracy case. we are hearing the foreman says that kelly meggs, who was a member of the oath keepers, guilty. we are hearinging jessica watkins, not guilty. harlz, not guilty. in this case, stewart rhodes, who was -- is the founder of the oath keepers, guilty. and someone who they believe was one of his top lieutenants, kelly meggs, guilty in this case. by the way, kelly meggs' wife has also been brought up in charges. so this is a very interesting difference here. because, like i told you earlier, each of the defendants had a story about why they were there and what they were doing and whether or not they planned to forcefully stop the peaceful transfer of power. this changes things a bit for the doj. this was a huge case that cannot be understated. it is the first case where seditious conspiracy charges went to trial. they have now gotten two guilty verdicts, both stewart rhodes, the founder of the oath keepers, and one of his lieutenants, kelly meggs, both guilty. but the other defendants, the other three defendants, not guilty the jury says. i've just gotten in a little bit more information about count two, which is conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. stewart rhodes, not guilty. kelly meggs, guilty. kenneth harrelson, also not guilty. jessica watkins, guilty. and thomas caldwell, not guilty. so so far what you're seeing here is there are a couple of people, kenneth harrelson and mr. caldwell, thomas caldwell, both not guilty on two of the conspiracy charges. so you're seeing sort of the jury going through each and every one of these and trying to decide, okay, did this happen, in your opinion, did the government prove its case. so it's a mixed bag for the government. and i'm sure at this point for mr. caldwell's attorney, who's not guilty on two of the charges, that they are happy to hear that from the jury. now, jake, i do want to mention that this is the first of about 20 cases in the january 6th attack on the capitol that shocked the -- america and the world where there is a conspiracy charge. about 20 cases will go to trial where there's a conspiracy charge. this was the first one with seditious conspiracy, one of the most serious charges. we have just gotten another decision by the jury in another of the up to ten charges. count number three, which is obstructing an official proceeding and either stopping an official proceeding by obstructing it, stewart rhodes, guilty. kelly meggs, considered one of his top lieutenants, guilty. kenneth harrelson, guilty. jessica watkins, guilty. and thomas caldwell, guilty. so this is the first charge where everyone who has been charged, and this is the obstruction of official proceeding, everyone who has been charged with count three has been found guilty by this jury. we are getting the rest of the charges in. if you don't mind, i will go through them with you. and if you would like to bring in our analyst eli, i know he has deep charges of what these mean. i will gather the rest of the charges as you are speaking with him. >> that sounds great. i think we have enough to chew on with our legal experts. to reiterate, we have two charges of seditious conspiracy, two guilty charges for stewart rhodes and kelly meggs, who i guess is his deputy. the other three defendants not guilty on seditious conspiracy. then there was a disrupting the transfer of power. that was a mixed bag. some were found guilty, some were found not guilty. and then obstructing an official proceeding, all five of the defendants were found guilty. that's what we know right now. ronato, walk us through what you see going on here. >> well, what we see, jake, is a jury that's very carefully considering the evidence as to each count and every specific defendant, which by the way, is how it's supposed to work in our system when you have a joint trial, that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. i actually think it's a very good thing for the justice department, because it's going to make it, in many ways, this verdict very defensible. ultimately, at the end of the day, the jury took a very close look at each one of these defendants, and you know, there is a saying we had as prosecutors -- one defendant, one count. in other words, for some of these defendants, even if they were found not guilty of certain things, at the end of the day, they're being found guilty of at least one very serious felony. so the judge, once that happens, the judge is going to be able to consider all the history and characteristics of the defendant, all of the nature and circumstances of this offense, and give a sentence based on all of that regardless of what the charge was. so i think it's a win for the justice department that they have a guilty verdict as to all the defendants for a serious felony. and as to seditious conspiracy, i think it shows the jury was considering these defenses, which by the way, jake, were inconsistent with each other. i mean, each defendant had their own spin that they were giving, which usually helps the justice department, because those are not necessarily aligned with each other. i think what they did here was they credited, some of those defendants -- or a supposed associate, but as to the people at the very top, they were willing to hold the top two people in the oath keeps responsible. >> as you note, all five have been found guilty of at least one felony, which is disrupting or obstructing an official proceeding. and juliet, for people who might not remember about a year or so ago, a lot of donald trump and the insurrectionist's defenders in politics and defenders in maga media were saying things along the lines of if this was so serious where are the seditious conspiracy charges, and of course, then the justice department brought them. explain how this guilty verdict fills in the bigger picture of what happened during the deadly riot on january 6th. does this say, look, this was a conspiracy, this was planned? >> exactly. so this was, of course a good day for the department of justice. you don't see me smile much. this is a really great day for the united states, for the rule of law, for the peaceful transfer of power and making sure that that is protected, because that is essentially what was on trial. this verdict we're going to have to drill down, because there's the different counts are related to what the intent was in terms of its obstruction, delay. but the overall charge against, in particular, stewart rhodes, is monumental because it is saying to the world that this was, one word, conspiracy, more than one. it is not a bunch of guys vacationing and deciding to get a little bit disruptive. it was planned before, during, and possibly after to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. we have to figure out exactly what each count relates to in terms of the guilty verdict. so it is not just a statement to those defendants, it's a statement to potentially future defendants. this is how these cases, this is how violent organizations die, which is a good thing. they get disrupted at the top. they turn on each other, which is what we saw in this case. they have no trust amongst each other, and they know that they have now been exposed. and so these other cases that sara was talking about that are down the pipeline in terms of wh