October 8, 2025 • 22 mins
The Gary and Shannon Show kicks off with breaking news from the Department of Justice. Gary and Shannon recap the just-wrapped Palisades Fire press conference, where federal officials announced the arrest of a 29-year-old suspect accused of intentionally setting the devastating blaze. KFI’s Michael Monks joins the show live from the presser with all the latest details. Then, Gary and Shannon pivot to the courtroom, breaking down former FBI Director James Comey’s not-guilty plea and the political implications surrounding the Trump-led DOJ’s case against him. And they wrap with a discussion about the idea of President Trump distributing a $2,000 stimulus check and question whether the money is better spent paying down the debt.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Gary and Shannon and you're listening to KFI
AM six forty The Gary and Shannon Show on demand
on the iHeartRadio app. There is a twenty nine year
old man, an uber driver who lives in Florida currently,
who has been arrested for starting the Palisades fire. This
is a guy who they believe started a fire in
the Palisades after being in a bad mood for his
(00:23):
last Uber rides. Knew a friend in the Pacific Palisades
apparently started that fire with an open flame on the
first That was the fire that continued to smolder and
ignited what was the catastrophic fire on January seventh. Keep
in mind, twelve people were killed in that fire. Sometimes
we forget that.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Yeah, and that was a good question from one of
the reporters, is why not a murder charge involved with us?
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Right?
Speaker 1 (00:47):
And so right now they've got him for what's called
the butt four causation for that January first fire. This
is a standard that yes, he set the fire in
January first, and yes it probably should have been put
out and that be negligence on behalf of the fire department. Yes,
but it was that first fire that he started and
had he not started that, the January seventh fire would
(01:09):
not have started, would not have destroyed the entire town
of Pacific Palisades and killed twelve people. So, you know,
but for his actions on the first, would the fire
on the seventh have happened.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
No, So they get him for the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
They said they wanted him in custody, murder charges could come.
They're going to send this to a grand jury, so
they just wanted to get him hooked up. It seems
like as soon as possible.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
He is expected in court within I think an hour
in Orlando. He was arrested at his home in Melbourne, Florida,
and they will take care of him there before he
is brought back here to California to face charges. We
assume there are a couple interesting things about it. One
of them is specifically the tactics that were involved.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
The ATF said that.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
They reviewed a million and a half phone records to
try to narrow down who this guy was. Also, so
Bill a Sale, the US attorney said something that contradicts
what we've heard for months now, which is that that
January first fire was not started by fireworks. That was
one of those things and it may be a minor issue,
(02:14):
but it was one of those storylines that was developed
early on.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Why wouldn't it be, Why wouldn't it be? Of course,
there were fireworks in the area. It was easy midnight
on the New Year's Eve.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
Yeah, they talk about it.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
It was twelve minutes after midnight on January first when
the fire sensing equipment up in the mountains there found
the fire in the first place, just twelve minutes after midnight.
And the other thing is, and I think this is
going to go to his defense, is he tried to
call nine one one a half dozen times or something
(02:47):
like that while the fire was in its beginning stages
back on January first, and he couldn't get through.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
His phone was out of range.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Apparently when he finally did connect to nine to one
to one, he was farther down the hill and by
that time, by the time he was able to connect,
somebody else had already called nine one one to report
a fire up in the hills.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Now, yes, as we mentioned, this was a fire that
should have been put out. The smoldering should have been
seen to by the fire department, and that will probably
be best case scenario for people who are suing. This
guy is an uber driver, as we mentioned, has no
money because he set the fire on the first and
(03:29):
it smoldered and ignited on the seventh and did the damage.
He's still on the hook for it. He's still responsible
for it. But if I'm suing, I get to go
after the county for negligence when it comes to not
putting that fire out. In the county has a hell
of a lot more money than this uber driver does,
so it may be best case scenario for people trying
to squeeze some money out of this, and rightly so,
(03:53):
I'm not saying that you're being overly litigious.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
And by the way, this guy's been on their radar
for some time. They interviewed him back on January twenty fourth.
They interviewed him just to two and a half weeks.
It sounds after the fire because he was one of
the guys that again would have originally reported that January
first fire, and they knew when the January seventh fire
or I guess reignition of the fire happened, they had
(04:19):
immediately concluded that there was a fire in that same
area before January seventh, so they might as well at
least run on the assumption that the two of them
may have been connected. So why not talk to the
guy one of the guys who called nine to one
one in the first place. He claimed that he was
near the bottom of a hiking trail when he first
saw the fire, but his iPhone tracking data showed that
(04:40):
he was in fact about thirty feet away from where
the fire started when he first made the attempted to
make a nine to one to one call.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Michael Monks is there monitoring this press conference for US
and for KFI News and joins us. Now, Michael Monks,
So what do we know about this guy's movements? By
the way, his name is Jonathan Render, well that's what
he goes by a full name, render Neck, but goes
by Jonathan Render John Render twenty nine. What do we
(05:08):
know about his movements leading up to that first fire
on January first?
Speaker 4 (05:14):
We know a couple of things.
Speaker 5 (05:15):
We know that one he was an Uber driver, as
you noted, and that he had some passengers who were
apparently interviewed by federal investigators. That's how exhaustive this whole
investigation has been. And those passengers said that this Uber driver,
Jonathan rinder Neck, was irritable or irritated. He was not
in a good mood, and so around that time he
(05:38):
dropped off a passenger on New Year's Eve and headed
up to that area of the Palisades where he watched.
This is what was so surprising was that he continuously
watched this music video that featured imagery of flames, and
so it indicates at least a moderate interest in fire.
We also know that he had created an image using
(06:01):
chat gpt, a prompt that created the image of a
city burning with people fleeing in it, and that he
went up by himself to this area in Pacific Palisades
and used some incendiary device and open flame, as investigators
called it, to start what was known as the Lachman Fire.
And as you noted, that was a fire that was
(06:23):
suppressed but not completely pulled out. It contended to continue
to smolder for almost a full week until those Santa
Ana winds breathe that vicious new life into it.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Do we know the timeline of the chat gpt image?
It was before after the fire? At how far before
or after?
Speaker 5 (06:41):
This was before? And you know this is where we
as an audio medium aren't completely as great as a
visual one. Because this is an image, but I'm going
to do my best to describe it for you, because
I did take a picture of this thing, and you know,
chat GPT can take a prompt from somebody. This is
one of those artificial intelligence communicators. You can put in
(07:02):
a prompt create an image for me showing this. And
what you see are nine blocks stacked in rows of
three on top of each other like a tic tac
toe board, and each of them have similar but different visuals,
with the left side showing immense flames including palm trees
(07:24):
and forests, parking garages and box trucks, homes and walls,
and on the right side are basically mirror images of
that except no fire. So there's fire burning these places
on the left, and then peaceful tranquility on the right
in each of those nine squares that this gentleman created
(07:46):
using a prompt in chat GPT, and ultimately this image
became all too real for folks in the Palisades when
the forestry win that vegetation and when that neighborhood caught
off fire and sent people running.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
Now this is nine months after the fact. Do we
know the timeline of when this investigation began? Into them
believing it wasn't fireworks and that this was said, and
how they found out about the Uber driver and tracked
him down to now Florida. Did he leave this area
to go to Florida to evade any sort of capture?
Speaker 3 (08:22):
Do we know anything about that?
Speaker 5 (08:24):
That last question you asked about when and why he
went to Florida, that was asked here in this news conference,
and the prosecutors, the Federal investigators, they're not releasing a
whole lot of details about that or about what his
motive might be. They're saving some stuff, as they always
do for the actual prosecution of this case should it
land in a courtroom. We know that, as you noted
(08:47):
earlier in your remarks, that they had interviewed this gentleman
a couple weeks after the fire is part of just
the general interviews they were doing of folks who saw
this initial fire break out. What we learned from the
ATF today is how intense an investigation into something as
devastating as a Palisades fire could be. The ATF special
(09:09):
Agent in charge here, Kenneth Cooper, he says that they
sent folks here who were on their hands and knees
in that area where they believe the fire, started collecting
whatever evidence they could, and we don't know everything about
what they collected. They wouldn't even be specific about what
may have been used to start the fire, except to
say it was an open flame and to say that
(09:33):
it was not a firework. But we do know that
they collected a ton of evidence, which you think had
to be difficult considering the devastation that was left behind
and what condition that evidence was.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Now they'll get this to a federal grand jury. And
the verbiage I thought was interesting that the US attorney
used there at the end.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
He said, this is not a probable case.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
A probable cause case, which is the bar for a
grand jury, is to determine that there is probable cause
to move forward with a complaint, with an indictment, a
formal accusation that would allow this thing to go to trial.
It's the very lowest bar. Because the question on the
table was why not a murder charge? Because twelve people
did die in this fire, and they would not be
(10:16):
dead had he not set that fire on the first
They obviously think, I mean, from my takeaway from his comments,
that's where this will lead, that the charges will be
much more severe than the accusations are bringing.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
At this point.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
US Attorney Bill of Sale brought the charge that he
could to get this guy incarcerated, and he'll be in
court in Florida today. It seems like, and I think
from covering bill of Sale in the Assembly and now
as the US attorney, if there are harsher charges that
can be brought, he will likely pursue those.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
This one's got a five year mandatory minimum sentence maximum
up to twenty just with what they got to get
this thing into the grand And as we mentioned, his
first appearance will be in federal court in Orlando, and
that is going to be today.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Is that what we heard?
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, an hour from now. As a matter of fact, Okay,
that's what we expect. Michael, great stuff. Thank you for that.
We'll hear from you throughout the course of the day
with updates.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
On this case. Thanks you got it.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
I thought it was funny just to give you an
idea of the personality of who.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
Michael Monks is. He was nice enough to refer to
this guy as a gentleman.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Oh I didn't even catch that.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Referred to him as a jed. But that's more about
Michael than it is. Yes, this suspect.
Speaker 4 (11:32):
Again.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
To wrap this up, a guy named Jonathan Rindernecked, twenty
nine year old who now at least lives in Melbourne, Florida,
has been charged with destruction of property by means of
fire in the Palisades Fire. And the basic case is
laid out by the US attorney there within the last
half an hour. So is that render Necked was the
(11:55):
one who started the Lochman fire. We knew that there
was a fire at the same origin point of where
the Palisades Fire started. We knew that there was about
a week before there had been a fire that started,
and the belief was that it basically wasn't put out
or it went underground, however, whatever you want to describe
what happened to it. And then as those very very
(12:18):
heavy wins came in on January seventh, this thing reignited
and became what we now know as the Palisades Fire.
Eight thousand structures, twelve people killed. This seems like it's
just the beginning of what this guy could be facing potentially,
and again he will appear in court coming up in Orlando, Florida,
(12:39):
probably within the hour. And of course Michael and the
KFI News department are going to have updates throughout the
course of the day today.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Yeah, we'll check back in with Michael throughout the show
and stay on top of this as the story develops.
Gary and Shannon will continue on this Wednesday, October eighth,
twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
You miss any of it, catch the podcast, subscribe to
the podcast wherever you get your podcasts on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (13:03):
That's a pretty smart, pretty smart sounding little thing you
did there.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Hey, thanks, you're welcome.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
What a great day we're going to have, is it?
Speaker 3 (13:09):
I think so?
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Okay? I think something's happening. There's a shift, a monumental shift, tectonic.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
If you will do we get a new is O lineman.
Are we gonna set the edge?
Speaker 4 (13:19):
We're gonna do something?
Speaker 6 (13:20):
All right? You're listening to Gary and Shannon on demand
from KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Let's get right to the business that we missed. We
have one thousand dollars to give away.
Speaker 6 (13:34):
Now your chance to win one thousand dollars just enter
this nationwide keyword on our website.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
Cash. That's cash ceash.
Speaker 6 (13:41):
Editor it now at KFIAM six forty dot com slash
Cash Howard by Sweet James Accident Attorneys. If you're hurting
an accident, winning is everything, call the winning attorneys at
Sweet James one eight hundred nine million. That's one eight
hundred nine million, or sweet James.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Dot com again the keyword cash goes on the website
next hour will give you another shot at winning one
thousand dollars. Of course, the big news today US Attorney's
Office announced the arrest of a twenty nine year old
guy out of Florida charged with starting the Palisades fire
back in January.
Speaker 6 (14:13):
I think this is a cover up there again to
save so Cal Edison and try to put the blame
everywhere but where it belongs.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Okay, to be clear, there's never been an indication that
Edison had anything to do with the Palisades fire. Now
the Eaton fire, and I'll started a very different story.
Right in the Palisades fire, there's not even there are
no power lines up in the area where the fire started.
So that's that's not a h that's been asked an
answered a long time ago.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Just to be clear, we.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Did have news coming out of Washington about James Comy.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Did he appear via zoom I.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
It's a good question. I don't know exactly. I believe
he probably did. But Comy pleaded not guilty to a
pair of criminal charges stemming from his testimony before the
Senate committee five years ago, and he made his first
court appearance in this case today, charged with making a
false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
But Justice Department officials have privately expressed that the case
could quickly unravel under the scrutiny of a federal judge
and defense lawyers. You think federal prosecutors investigating James Comey
for allegedly making false statements determine that a central witness
in their investigation would prove problematic and likely prevent them
from establishing their case to a jury.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Yeah, and if again, you have to set your personal
feelings aside when it comes to this. Hopefully the legal
system does not take personal feelings into account. But the
question is whether or not James call Me lied to
a Senate committee when he was asked about a leak
to The New York Times from way back in twenty sixteen.
(15:58):
He was told by Andrew McCabe, one of his deputies
at the time, again, this is back in twenty sixteen
that McCabe leaked a story to The New York Times.
The question was, did James call Mey authorize it?
Speaker 1 (16:13):
But this is the other guy in question, Daniel Richmond.
He's a law professor who prosecutors alleged Comy authorized to
leak information to the press. And Daniel Richmond told investigators
that Comy instructed him not to engage with the media
on at least two occasions, and on equivocally said Comy
never authorized him to provide the information to a reporter
(16:34):
anonymously ahead of the twenty sixteen election. So using Rickman's
testimony to prove that Comy knowingly provided false statements to
Congress would result in insurmountable problems for the prosecution. This
is a code red situation. Did he order the leak
or did he order do not leak?
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Specifically, and the way that I think it was centered
specifically on questioning from Senator Ted Cruz out of Texas.
Does knowledge of a leak constitute authorization of that leak?
Even if the knowledge came post leak, if he didn't
do anything to stop it, does that consider is that
(17:14):
considered authorization?
Speaker 4 (17:15):
And the time limit on this thing as well. Remember this,
We're going to.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Say that in September twenty twenty, when he testified in
front of Congress, there's a five year statute of limitations.
They filed these charges four day, five days before that
statute would have been up.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Also, Comy's lawyers are going to argue that the statute
of limitations expired years earlier because the underlying issue relates
to twenty seventeen testimony. So there's a whole host of
issues with this whole thing. It's just symbolic, if anything else,
it is symbolic that Trump holds grudges, that he remembers,
he hates James Comy, that he wanted this thing filed,
(17:52):
and they got it done.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
And listen again, I'll go back to what I said
at the beginning. You can have negative personal feelings about
James Comy. I he Lefty. I've seen this guy grasp
on to celebrity in a way that disgustatic.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
It's just sad.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
But that's not to say that he's going to be
guilty of these charges. And in fact, this case it
appears to be relatively weak.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
We'll see exactly where it goes.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
There is another issue that I've seen a lot of
headlines about, and that is this this.
Speaker 4 (18:26):
Tariff check that we could be getting.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Trump said that he is considering offering Americans checks from
tariff revenue somewhere between one thousand and two thousand dollars.
He said, Number one, we're paying down debt because people
have allowed the debt to go crazy. We'll pay back
the debt, but we might also make a distribution to
the people, like a dividend to the people of the
United States.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
And I love the idea.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
There are people who love the idea of getting just
a random check from the government of a thousand, two
thousand dollars whatever it is. Well, that money comes from somewhere,
and that money could be better used somewhere else. The
President saying that we're going to use it to pay
down debt, you know, this tariff income is probably the
(19:12):
better way to do it. Here's the other problem. We're
not certain that this is going to stand in court.
The tariffs that have been imposed. Yeah, it would be
an absolute mess to untangle if all of these terifts
have to be refunded because they're found to be illegal.
But given the money to the American people is probably
the it's definitely a political step. Allow me to be
(19:34):
a little bit what's the word negative about it? I'll
just say that cynical. But it's a way for the
president to go. How am I supposed to get all
this money back? If I've already given one thousand dollars
to every American in this tariff check, how am I
going to get it all back?
Speaker 4 (19:52):
Why would you say that that's illegal?
Speaker 1 (19:54):
I mean, We've got a massive ten o'clock hour coming
out for you. We will read visit the massive story
of the day, which that which was that an arrest
has been made in connection with an uber driver who
started that Palisades fire, according to prosecutors. Will get all
of the deats on that, also the investigation into what
caused that massive El Segundo explosion. And Katie Porter got
(20:18):
an interview. You got to hear this. The front front
runner for the governor of California gets very heated in
this interview and the audio is pretty good. Also, did
you know that calling someone a pumpkin was an insult
for a very very long time.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
A pumpkin?
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Hmm, But now it's celebrated, the celebratory gord of fall.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
Is it was actually an insult. For a long time.
My dad called me pumpkin.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
By sixteen eighty pumpkin amy was applied contemptuously to a
person who's a bit conceited or self important or stupid.
Speaker 4 (20:53):
That redefines Amy's relation.
Speaker 3 (20:55):
No, because Amy's not from sixteen eighty. Oh, she's from
like nineteen eighty two.
Speaker 4 (21:00):
Have you ever done past life regression? Amy?
Speaker 3 (21:03):
They have not?
Speaker 4 (21:04):
Whoa that? I just got a.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
I just got a total vibe that you were involved
somehow in the Salem witch trials.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
Not that you're a witch, not that you were a witch.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
I means she was very smart. They burned smart women
called them witches. Say that she is very smart.
Speaker 7 (21:18):
Gary burned at the steak or I was so stupid
that I did that.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
I didn't. I can't there.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
You were probably one that they dunked underwater to see
if you were a witch.
Speaker 7 (21:27):
We just went Actually we were in Canterbury, England, and
we saw one of those chairs where they did that
wal not up bro weird right.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
The Druids of March said, all right, the Canterbury Tales
coming up next on Gary and Shannon.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
You've been listening to the Gary and Shannon show.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
You can always hear us live on kf I AM
six forty nine am to one pm every Monday through Friday,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio LAP
This is Gary and Shannon and you're listening to KFI
AM six forty The Gary and Shannon Show on demand
on the iHeartRadio app. There is a twenty nine year
old man, an uber driver who lives in Florida currently,
who has been arrested for starting the Palisades fire. This
is a guy who they believe started a fire in
the Palisades after being in a bad mood for his
(00:23):
last Uber rides. Knew a friend in the Pacific Palisades
apparently started that fire with an open flame on the
first That was the fire that continued to smolder and
ignited what was the catastrophic fire on January seventh. Keep
in mind, twelve people were killed in that fire. Sometimes
we forget that.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Yeah, and that was a good question from one of
the reporters, is why not a murder charge involved with us?
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Right?
Speaker 1 (00:47):
And so right now they've got him for what's called
the butt four causation for that January first fire. This
is a standard that yes, he set the fire in
January first, and yes it probably should have been put
out and that be negligence on behalf of the fire department. Yes,
but it was that first fire that he started and
had he not started that, the January seventh fire would
(01:09):
not have started, would not have destroyed the entire town
of Pacific Palisades and killed twelve people. So, you know,
but for his actions on the first, would the fire
on the seventh have happened.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
No, So they get him for the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
They said they wanted him in custody, murder charges could come.
They're going to send this to a grand jury, so
they just wanted to get him hooked up. It seems
like as soon as possible.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
He is expected in court within I think an hour
in Orlando. He was arrested at his home in Melbourne, Florida,
and they will take care of him there before he
is brought back here to California to face charges. We
assume there are a couple interesting things about it. One
of them is specifically the tactics that were involved.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
The ATF said that.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
They reviewed a million and a half phone records to
try to narrow down who this guy was. Also, so
Bill a Sale, the US attorney said something that contradicts
what we've heard for months now, which is that that
January first fire was not started by fireworks. That was
one of those things and it may be a minor issue,
(02:14):
but it was one of those storylines that was developed
early on.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Why wouldn't it be, Why wouldn't it be? Of course,
there were fireworks in the area. It was easy midnight
on the New Year's Eve.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
Yeah, they talk about it.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
It was twelve minutes after midnight on January first when
the fire sensing equipment up in the mountains there found
the fire in the first place, just twelve minutes after midnight.
And the other thing is, and I think this is
going to go to his defense, is he tried to
call nine one one a half dozen times or something
(02:47):
like that while the fire was in its beginning stages
back on January first, and he couldn't get through.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
His phone was out of range.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Apparently when he finally did connect to nine to one
to one, he was farther down the hill and by
that time, by the time he was able to connect,
somebody else had already called nine one one to report
a fire up in the hills.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Now, yes, as we mentioned, this was a fire that
should have been put out. The smoldering should have been
seen to by the fire department, and that will probably
be best case scenario for people who are suing. This
guy is an uber driver, as we mentioned, has no
money because he set the fire on the first and
(03:29):
it smoldered and ignited on the seventh and did the damage.
He's still on the hook for it. He's still responsible
for it. But if I'm suing, I get to go
after the county for negligence when it comes to not
putting that fire out. In the county has a hell
of a lot more money than this uber driver does,
so it may be best case scenario for people trying
to squeeze some money out of this, and rightly so,
(03:53):
I'm not saying that you're being overly litigious.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
And by the way, this guy's been on their radar
for some time. They interviewed him back on January twenty fourth.
They interviewed him just to two and a half weeks.
It sounds after the fire because he was one of
the guys that again would have originally reported that January
first fire, and they knew when the January seventh fire
or I guess reignition of the fire happened, they had
(04:19):
immediately concluded that there was a fire in that same
area before January seventh, so they might as well at
least run on the assumption that the two of them
may have been connected. So why not talk to the
guy one of the guys who called nine to one
one in the first place. He claimed that he was
near the bottom of a hiking trail when he first
saw the fire, but his iPhone tracking data showed that
(04:40):
he was in fact about thirty feet away from where
the fire started when he first made the attempted to
make a nine to one to one call.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Michael Monks is there monitoring this press conference for US
and for KFI News and joins us. Now, Michael Monks,
So what do we know about this guy's movements? By
the way, his name is Jonathan Render, well that's what
he goes by a full name, render Neck, but goes
by Jonathan Render John Render twenty nine. What do we
(05:08):
know about his movements leading up to that first fire
on January first?
Speaker 4 (05:14):
We know a couple of things.
Speaker 5 (05:15):
We know that one he was an Uber driver, as
you noted, and that he had some passengers who were
apparently interviewed by federal investigators. That's how exhaustive this whole
investigation has been. And those passengers said that this Uber driver,
Jonathan rinder Neck, was irritable or irritated. He was not
in a good mood, and so around that time he
(05:38):
dropped off a passenger on New Year's Eve and headed
up to that area of the Palisades where he watched.
This is what was so surprising was that he continuously
watched this music video that featured imagery of flames, and
so it indicates at least a moderate interest in fire.
We also know that he had created an image using
(06:01):
chat gpt, a prompt that created the image of a
city burning with people fleeing in it, and that he
went up by himself to this area in Pacific Palisades
and used some incendiary device and open flame, as investigators
called it, to start what was known as the Lachman Fire.
And as you noted, that was a fire that was
(06:23):
suppressed but not completely pulled out. It contended to continue
to smolder for almost a full week until those Santa
Ana winds breathe that vicious new life into it.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Do we know the timeline of the chat gpt image?
It was before after the fire? At how far before
or after?
Speaker 5 (06:41):
This was before? And you know this is where we
as an audio medium aren't completely as great as a
visual one. Because this is an image, but I'm going
to do my best to describe it for you, because
I did take a picture of this thing, and you know,
chat GPT can take a prompt from somebody. This is
one of those artificial intelligence communicators. You can put in
(07:02):
a prompt create an image for me showing this. And
what you see are nine blocks stacked in rows of
three on top of each other like a tic tac
toe board, and each of them have similar but different visuals,
with the left side showing immense flames including palm trees
(07:24):
and forests, parking garages and box trucks, homes and walls,
and on the right side are basically mirror images of
that except no fire. So there's fire burning these places
on the left, and then peaceful tranquility on the right
in each of those nine squares that this gentleman created
(07:46):
using a prompt in chat GPT, and ultimately this image
became all too real for folks in the Palisades when
the forestry win that vegetation and when that neighborhood caught
off fire and sent people running.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
Now this is nine months after the fact. Do we
know the timeline of when this investigation began? Into them
believing it wasn't fireworks and that this was said, and
how they found out about the Uber driver and tracked
him down to now Florida. Did he leave this area
to go to Florida to evade any sort of capture?
Speaker 3 (08:22):
Do we know anything about that?
Speaker 5 (08:24):
That last question you asked about when and why he
went to Florida, that was asked here in this news conference,
and the prosecutors, the Federal investigators, they're not releasing a
whole lot of details about that or about what his
motive might be. They're saving some stuff, as they always
do for the actual prosecution of this case should it
land in a courtroom. We know that, as you noted
(08:47):
earlier in your remarks, that they had interviewed this gentleman
a couple weeks after the fire is part of just
the general interviews they were doing of folks who saw
this initial fire break out. What we learned from the
ATF today is how intense an investigation into something as
devastating as a Palisades fire could be. The ATF special
(09:09):
Agent in charge here, Kenneth Cooper, he says that they
sent folks here who were on their hands and knees
in that area where they believe the fire, started collecting
whatever evidence they could, and we don't know everything about
what they collected. They wouldn't even be specific about what
may have been used to start the fire, except to
say it was an open flame and to say that
(09:33):
it was not a firework. But we do know that
they collected a ton of evidence, which you think had
to be difficult considering the devastation that was left behind
and what condition that evidence was.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Now they'll get this to a federal grand jury. And
the verbiage I thought was interesting that the US attorney
used there at the end.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
He said, this is not a probable case.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
A probable cause case, which is the bar for a
grand jury, is to determine that there is probable cause
to move forward with a complaint, with an indictment, a
formal accusation that would allow this thing to go to trial.
It's the very lowest bar. Because the question on the
table was why not a murder charge? Because twelve people
did die in this fire, and they would not be
(10:16):
dead had he not set that fire on the first
They obviously think, I mean, from my takeaway from his comments,
that's where this will lead, that the charges will be
much more severe than the accusations are bringing.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
At this point.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
US Attorney Bill of Sale brought the charge that he
could to get this guy incarcerated, and he'll be in
court in Florida today. It seems like, and I think
from covering bill of Sale in the Assembly and now
as the US attorney, if there are harsher charges that
can be brought, he will likely pursue those.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
This one's got a five year mandatory minimum sentence maximum
up to twenty just with what they got to get
this thing into the grand And as we mentioned, his
first appearance will be in federal court in Orlando, and
that is going to be today.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Is that what we heard?
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, an hour from now. As a matter of fact, Okay,
that's what we expect. Michael, great stuff. Thank you for that.
We'll hear from you throughout the course of the day
with updates.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
On this case. Thanks you got it.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
I thought it was funny just to give you an
idea of the personality of who.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
Michael Monks is. He was nice enough to refer to
this guy as a gentleman.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Oh I didn't even catch that.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Referred to him as a jed. But that's more about
Michael than it is. Yes, this suspect.
Speaker 4 (11:32):
Again.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
To wrap this up, a guy named Jonathan Rindernecked, twenty
nine year old who now at least lives in Melbourne, Florida,
has been charged with destruction of property by means of
fire in the Palisades Fire. And the basic case is
laid out by the US attorney there within the last
half an hour. So is that render Necked was the
(11:55):
one who started the Lochman fire. We knew that there
was a fire at the same origin point of where
the Palisades Fire started. We knew that there was about
a week before there had been a fire that started,
and the belief was that it basically wasn't put out
or it went underground, however, whatever you want to describe
what happened to it. And then as those very very
(12:18):
heavy wins came in on January seventh, this thing reignited
and became what we now know as the Palisades Fire.
Eight thousand structures, twelve people killed. This seems like it's
just the beginning of what this guy could be facing potentially,
and again he will appear in court coming up in Orlando, Florida,
(12:39):
probably within the hour. And of course Michael and the
KFI News department are going to have updates throughout the
course of the day today.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Yeah, we'll check back in with Michael throughout the show
and stay on top of this as the story develops.
Gary and Shannon will continue on this Wednesday, October eighth,
twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
You miss any of it, catch the podcast, subscribe to
the podcast wherever you get your podcasts on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (13:03):
That's a pretty smart, pretty smart sounding little thing you
did there.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Hey, thanks, you're welcome.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
What a great day we're going to have, is it?
Speaker 3 (13:09):
I think so?
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Okay? I think something's happening. There's a shift, a monumental shift, tectonic.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
If you will do we get a new is O lineman.
Are we gonna set the edge?
Speaker 4 (13:19):
We're gonna do something?
Speaker 6 (13:20):
All right? You're listening to Gary and Shannon on demand
from KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Let's get right to the business that we missed. We
have one thousand dollars to give away.
Speaker 6 (13:34):
Now your chance to win one thousand dollars just enter
this nationwide keyword on our website.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
Cash. That's cash ceash.
Speaker 6 (13:41):
Editor it now at KFIAM six forty dot com slash
Cash Howard by Sweet James Accident Attorneys. If you're hurting
an accident, winning is everything, call the winning attorneys at
Sweet James one eight hundred nine million. That's one eight
hundred nine million, or sweet James.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Dot com again the keyword cash goes on the website
next hour will give you another shot at winning one
thousand dollars. Of course, the big news today US Attorney's
Office announced the arrest of a twenty nine year old
guy out of Florida charged with starting the Palisades fire
back in January.
Speaker 6 (14:13):
I think this is a cover up there again to
save so Cal Edison and try to put the blame
everywhere but where it belongs.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Okay, to be clear, there's never been an indication that
Edison had anything to do with the Palisades fire. Now
the Eaton fire, and I'll started a very different story.
Right in the Palisades fire, there's not even there are
no power lines up in the area where the fire started.
So that's that's not a h that's been asked an
answered a long time ago.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Just to be clear, we.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Did have news coming out of Washington about James Comy.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Did he appear via zoom I.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
It's a good question. I don't know exactly. I believe
he probably did. But Comy pleaded not guilty to a
pair of criminal charges stemming from his testimony before the
Senate committee five years ago, and he made his first
court appearance in this case today, charged with making a
false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
But Justice Department officials have privately expressed that the case
could quickly unravel under the scrutiny of a federal judge
and defense lawyers. You think federal prosecutors investigating James Comey
for allegedly making false statements determine that a central witness
in their investigation would prove problematic and likely prevent them
from establishing their case to a jury.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Yeah, and if again, you have to set your personal
feelings aside when it comes to this. Hopefully the legal
system does not take personal feelings into account. But the
question is whether or not James call Me lied to
a Senate committee when he was asked about a leak
to The New York Times from way back in twenty sixteen.
(15:58):
He was told by Andrew McCabe, one of his deputies
at the time, again, this is back in twenty sixteen
that McCabe leaked a story to The New York Times.
The question was, did James call Mey authorize it?
Speaker 1 (16:13):
But this is the other guy in question, Daniel Richmond.
He's a law professor who prosecutors alleged Comy authorized to
leak information to the press. And Daniel Richmond told investigators
that Comy instructed him not to engage with the media
on at least two occasions, and on equivocally said Comy
never authorized him to provide the information to a reporter
(16:34):
anonymously ahead of the twenty sixteen election. So using Rickman's
testimony to prove that Comy knowingly provided false statements to
Congress would result in insurmountable problems for the prosecution. This
is a code red situation. Did he order the leak
or did he order do not leak?
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Specifically, and the way that I think it was centered
specifically on questioning from Senator Ted Cruz out of Texas.
Does knowledge of a leak constitute authorization of that leak?
Even if the knowledge came post leak, if he didn't
do anything to stop it, does that consider is that
(17:14):
considered authorization?
Speaker 4 (17:15):
And the time limit on this thing as well. Remember this,
We're going to.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Say that in September twenty twenty, when he testified in
front of Congress, there's a five year statute of limitations.
They filed these charges four day, five days before that
statute would have been up.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Also, Comy's lawyers are going to argue that the statute
of limitations expired years earlier because the underlying issue relates
to twenty seventeen testimony. So there's a whole host of
issues with this whole thing. It's just symbolic, if anything else,
it is symbolic that Trump holds grudges, that he remembers,
he hates James Comy, that he wanted this thing filed,
(17:52):
and they got it done.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
And listen again, I'll go back to what I said
at the beginning. You can have negative personal feelings about
James Comy. I he Lefty. I've seen this guy grasp
on to celebrity in a way that disgustatic.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
It's just sad.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
But that's not to say that he's going to be
guilty of these charges. And in fact, this case it
appears to be relatively weak.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
We'll see exactly where it goes.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
There is another issue that I've seen a lot of
headlines about, and that is this this.
Speaker 4 (18:26):
Tariff check that we could be getting.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Trump said that he is considering offering Americans checks from
tariff revenue somewhere between one thousand and two thousand dollars.
He said, Number one, we're paying down debt because people
have allowed the debt to go crazy. We'll pay back
the debt, but we might also make a distribution to
the people, like a dividend to the people of the
United States.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
And I love the idea.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
There are people who love the idea of getting just
a random check from the government of a thousand, two
thousand dollars whatever it is. Well, that money comes from somewhere,
and that money could be better used somewhere else. The
President saying that we're going to use it to pay
down debt, you know, this tariff income is probably the
(19:12):
better way to do it. Here's the other problem. We're
not certain that this is going to stand in court.
The tariffs that have been imposed. Yeah, it would be
an absolute mess to untangle if all of these terifts
have to be refunded because they're found to be illegal.
But given the money to the American people is probably
the it's definitely a political step. Allow me to be
(19:34):
a little bit what's the word negative about it? I'll
just say that cynical. But it's a way for the
president to go. How am I supposed to get all
this money back? If I've already given one thousand dollars
to every American in this tariff check, how am I
going to get it all back?
Speaker 4 (19:52):
Why would you say that that's illegal?
Speaker 1 (19:54):
I mean, We've got a massive ten o'clock hour coming
out for you. We will read visit the massive story
of the day, which that which was that an arrest
has been made in connection with an uber driver who
started that Palisades fire, according to prosecutors. Will get all
of the deats on that, also the investigation into what
caused that massive El Segundo explosion. And Katie Porter got
(20:18):
an interview. You got to hear this. The front front
runner for the governor of California gets very heated in
this interview and the audio is pretty good. Also, did
you know that calling someone a pumpkin was an insult
for a very very long time.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
A pumpkin?
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Hmm, But now it's celebrated, the celebratory gord of fall.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
Is it was actually an insult. For a long time.
My dad called me pumpkin.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
By sixteen eighty pumpkin amy was applied contemptuously to a
person who's a bit conceited or self important or stupid.
Speaker 4 (20:53):
That redefines Amy's relation.
Speaker 3 (20:55):
No, because Amy's not from sixteen eighty. Oh, she's from
like nineteen eighty two.
Speaker 4 (21:00):
Have you ever done past life regression? Amy?
Speaker 3 (21:03):
They have not?
Speaker 4 (21:04):
Whoa that? I just got a.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
I just got a total vibe that you were involved
somehow in the Salem witch trials.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
Not that you're a witch, not that you were a witch.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
I means she was very smart. They burned smart women
called them witches. Say that she is very smart.
Speaker 7 (21:18):
Gary burned at the steak or I was so stupid
that I did that.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
I didn't. I can't there.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
You were probably one that they dunked underwater to see
if you were a witch.
Speaker 7 (21:27):
We just went Actually we were in Canterbury, England, and
we saw one of those chairs where they did that
wal not up bro weird right.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
The Druids of March said, all right, the Canterbury Tales
coming up next on Gary and Shannon.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
You've been listening to the Gary and Shannon show.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
You can always hear us live on kf I AM
six forty nine am to one pm every Monday through Friday,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio LAP
Gary and Shannon News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com