KWRE AM

The Department of Justice announced on Wednesday that a 29-year-old former Uber driver from Florida has been arrested and charged in connection with the Palisades Fire, one of the most devastating wildfires in Los Angeles history that killed a dozen people in the region earlier this year.  The fire is also responsible for burning more than 23,000 acres of land in the Pacific Palisades, Malibu and the Santa Monica mountains, according to Cal Fire, and more than 6,800 structures were destroyed.  The Palisade Fire was ignited the same day as the Eaton Fire, which burned more than 14,00 acres in Los Angeles County, destroyed more than 9,400 structures and killed 19 people, according to officials.

According to the DOJ, Jonathan Rinderknecht is accused of “maliciously” setting the blaze on January 1st, that killed twelve people before it was fully contained on January 31. Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California said in a post on X that Rinderknecht was taken into custody Tuesday near his home in Florida and charged with destruction of property by means of fire. A criminal complaint states that Rinderknecht will be charged with Destruction of Property by Means of Fire, with Essayli saying that additional charges may be added. The felony charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison, which could last as long as 20 years if convicted.

Authorities believe the Palisades Fire was a “holdover” blaze — a continuation of the Lachman Fire, which Rinderknecht allegedly ignited on New Year’s Day. Firefighters initially managed to extinguish the Lachman Fire, but according to a federal criminal complaint, smoldering embers remained underground. On January 7, as powerful winds swept through the area, the fire reignited and rapidly spread, transforming into the deadly Palisades Fire. Investigators ruled out other potential causes, including fireworks, lightning, and electrical equipment, concluding that none were responsible for the deadly blaze.

Investigators say Rinderknecht, who once lived in Pacific Palisades, had recently completed an Uber shift when he allegedly started the fire. Two of his passengers told authorities he appeared “agitated and angry” that night, according to the complaint. After dropping off a passenger in the neighborhood, Rinderknecht reportedly drove toward the Skull Rock Trailhead, attempted to contact a former friend, and then walked up the trail. Investigators say he took photos on his cellphone and listened to a song by a French artist whose music video featured fires being set, according to the Department of Justice. Around 11:47 p.m., Rinderknecht allegedly recorded two videos from the hilltop, showing no visible flames. Roughly 25 minutes later, at 12:12 a.m. on January 1, sensors detected a fire in the same area.

The complaint states that Rinderknecht tried calling 911 multiple times but was unable to connect because his phone had no signal. He eventually reached an operator and reported the blaze, around the same time a nearby resident also called in the fire. After making the report, Rinderknecht allegedly fled in his vehicle but soon turned around and followed fire trucks heading toward the scene. Around 1 a.m., he reportedly recorded additional videos showing firefighters battling the growing inferno, according to prosecutors.

Essayli said in a statement: “A single person’s recklessness caused one of the worst fires Los Angeles has ever seen, resulting in death and widespread destruction in Pacific Palisades. While we cannot bring back what victims lost, we hope this criminal case brings some measure of justice to those affected by this horrific tragedy.”

Editorial credit: eley archive / Shutterstock.com

Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty on Wednesday during his arraignment in federal court, facing charges brought after a very public campaign by President Trump urging prosecutors to take action against him. Comey’s attorney, Pat Fitzgerald, waived the formal reading of the indictment and requested a jury trial during the short court appearance.

A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted Comey last month on two counts — making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The indictment came shortly after Trump posted on his social media platform, demanding that Attorney General Pam Bondi charge Comey, saying, “We can’t delay any longer.”

Comey, a longtime registered Republican who previously served in the George W. Bush administration, became one of Trump’s most frequent targets after his actions helped trigger special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The Trump administration accuses Comey of lying to Congress about whether he had authorized a third party to anonymously brief the media about an FBI investigation. Comey testified in 2017 that he had not approved any leaks related to that probe and reiterated his statement during a 2020 Senate hearing, saying, “I stand by the testimony.”

Comey’s daughter, a former federal prosecutor who was dismissed from the Justice Department in July, attended the hearing to show support for her father, as well as his wife. The judge read the charges and said they carry a penalty of up to five years in prison with a $250,000 fine. During the proceedings, Comey spoke only once, responding politely when asked if he understood his rights: “I do, your honor. Thank you very much.” Those rights included his right to remain silent and right to legal counsel. Due to strict courtroom rules, no electronic devices were allowed inside the Alexandria courthouse, meaning news from the arraignment emerged only after the hearing concluded.

The court scheduled Comey’s trial for January 5, with both sides estimating it will last two to three days. Fitzgerald said Comey’s defense plans to file two main motions — one claiming the prosecution is vindictive and politically motivated, and another challenging the appointment of Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s former personal attorney, as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Fitzgerald described Halligan’s appointment as “unlawful.” He added that the defense would also file motions addressing what he called “grand jury abuse” and “outrageous government conduct.”

The charges came after Trump reportedly pressured the acting U.S. Attorney in Virginia to resign, paving the way for Halligan to take over the office. Halligan personally presented the case against Comey to the grand jury, an uncommon move for someone in her position. According to reports, Halligan initially sought three criminal counts, but the grand jury declined to indict on one. A majority of jurors agreed there was probable cause to charge Comey with making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding.

Comey’s trial will be overseen by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff. Alongside Halligan, two additional prosecutors from a separate U.S. Attorney’s Office in North Carolina — Nathaniel Lemons and Gabriel J. Diaz — have been added to the case.

Editorial credit: mark reinstein / Shutterstock.com

The Supreme Court appeared to lean toward supporting a free speech challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity—a decision that could have broad national consequences. Colorado is one of 23 states that ban conversion therapy, the practice of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy. If the justices rule against Colorado, the outcome could affect more than 20 states with similar laws and raise new questions about the limits of state authority to regulate health care practices.

At issue is a 2019 Colorado statute that bars licensed mental health professionals from offering therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity—unless the therapy is broadly supportive of identity exploration or gender transition. The law explicitly prohibits counseling intended to reduce same-sex attraction or to change gender-related behaviors or expressions.

The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist who contends that Colorado’s 2019 law violates her First Amendment rights. She is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and backed by the Trump administration. At the heart of the case is whether the state’s ban regulates medical conduct—as Colorado argues—or restricts speech, as Chiles claims. She says her work involves only “talk therapy,” making it a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. The court’s 6–3 conservative majority, which has frequently supported free speech claims aligned with conservative causes, seemed largely receptive to her arguments during oral arguments. The Trump administration, in a brief supporting Chiles, argued that the Colorado law does restrict speech but said that striking it down would not necessarily threaten other state healthcare regulations.

Several conservative justices signaled concern that Colorado’s approach may unfairly favor one viewpoint over another. Justice Samuel Alito noted that allowing counselors to encourage minors to embrace their gender identities while forbidding them from questioning those identities “appears to be blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

Other members of the court were also skeptical of Colorado’s argument that the law governs professional conduct rather than speech. “Just because they are engage in conduct doesn’t mean their words aren’t protected,” Chief Justice John Roberts said, referencing a 2018 decision in which the court struck down a California law requiring anti-abortion pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion services.

The court’s three liberal justices pressed Chiles’ attorney with more challenging questions, though only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to fully agree with Colorado’s defense of the ban. She pointed to the court’s earlier ruling this year that upheld a Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for minors, saying: “It just seems odd to me that we might have a different result here,” Jackson said..”

A recurring issue throughout the arguments was whether striking down Colorado’s law could also prevent conservative states from passing what Justice Neil Gorsuch called “mirror-image” laws—those that would prohibit therapy encouraging minors to embrace their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, warned in court filings that a decision against the state could undermine not only conversion therapy bans but also other regulations that restrict unsafe or ineffective medical practices. Chiles countered that her counseling constitutes “vital speech” that helps young clients explore their identities. Her lawyers accused the state of trying to “control what children believe about themselves and who they can become.”

Under Colorado’s statute, any violation can lead to fines up to $5,000. The state permits therapies that assist with gender transition, as well as “acceptance, support and understanding” approaches to gender identity and sexual orientation—so long as they do not insist on a predetermined therapeutic outcome.

The justices may not issue a sweeping ruling on conversion therapy bans themselves. Instead, they could decide whether lower courts properly applied the correct legal framework when they upheld Colorado’s law.

If the Supreme Court strikes down or significantly narrows the law, it could undercut similar bans in more than two dozen states and reshape the balance between speech rights and state regulation of professional counseling. The court is expected to issue its ruling by next June.

Editorial credit: Amy Lutz / Shutterstock.com

Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday in a hearing focused on oversight of the Justice Department—her first appearance before the panel since being confirmed to the role.

Throughout the session, Bondi avoided giving direct answers to several questions raised by Democratic senators, particularly those concerning any communications she may have had with the White House about investigations targeting President Trump’s political opponents. Among those inquiries was whether she discussed possible charges against former FBI Director James Comey, as well as the firings of Department of Justice attorneys who worked on Jan. 6 cases and her refusal to prosecute certain cases of Trump’s allies. That prosecution effort reportedly caused internal turmoil within the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia and ultimately led President Trump to appoint a White House aide to lead the office.

Bondi also sidestepped questions about her office’s management of materials connected to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died while in federal custody in 2019; responded that the Democrats should explain their own relationships with him (per CNN). Earlier this year, the Justice Department announced that no additional information from the Epstein case would be released, a decision that frustrated lawmakers and prompted new congressional attempts to obtain the documents.

During the hearing, Bondi defended the Trump administration’s record on law enforcement and immigration, emphasizing its commitment to reducing crime. She clashed early on with Sen. Dick Durbin, the committee’s top Democrat, over the administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. “If you’re not going to protect your citizens,” Bondi told him, “President Trump will.”

Sen Richard Blumenthal, D-N.Y., told reporters after leaving the hearing that Bondi’s testimony was a “new low” for attorneys general: “Her apparent strategy is to attack and conceal. Frankly, I’ve been through close to 15 of these attorney general accountability hearings, and I have never seen anything close to it in terms of the combativeness, the evasiveness and sometimes deceptiveness. I think it is possibly a new low for attorneys general testifying before the United States Congress, and I just hope my Republican colleagues will demand more accountability than what we have seen so far.”

The White House praised Bondi after the hearing, stating: “She’s doing great. Not only is the AG debunking every single bogus Democrat talking point, but she’s highlighting the Democrats’ own hypocrisy and they have no response.”

For more key moments and notable exchanges from Bondi’s hearing on Tuesday, head HERE.

Editorial credit: Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com