Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Arrest Made in Palisades Fire; Interview With Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ); James Comey Pleads Not Guilty; Trump Calls For Illinois Governor, Chicago Mayor to Be in Jail. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired October 08, 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]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:01:23]

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: A retribution campaign and a court appearance, former FBI Director James Comey arraigned on criminal charges the president pushed for. Comey says he's innocent and is facing up to five years in prison.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The president's political attacks on foes are not stopping there. Now he's calling for the arrest of the Illinois governor and Chicago mayor, as tensions escalate over the administration's expanding immigration crackdown.

And an arrest to tell you about in the Palisades Fire investigation, one of the worst fires in Los Angeles history, torching more than 23,000 acres, killing a dozen people. We will break down the evidence that officials say ties the suspect to the crime, as we follow these major developing stories and many more, all coming your way on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

HILL: Hundreds of National Guards troops now gathered near Chicago ahead of a crucial hearing tomorrow about their deployment. City and state leaders are suing over the president's crackdown, which he says is in response to violence there. Local leaders, though, say his use of the Guard amounts to an invasion.

The front pages of today's "Chicago Tribune" and "The Sun Times" reflecting the rising tension in the region. This morning, the president actually calling for Chicago's mayor and the governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker, calling for both to be put in jail.

And that is where we begin this hour. CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes joins us.

So, remarkable in many ways to see a president calling for this, for the governor and the mayor to be thrown in jail, Kristen.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's stunning in some ways, but in others not.

Of course, we have seen him across the board, President Trump, ramping up these attacks on people he perceives as political enemies. But when it comes to Chicago, that rhetoric itself has gotten extremely heated,as you mentioned, these hundreds of National Guard troops arriving in the area as lawyers scramble to prepare for that court hearing.

And when we hear from both sides, it sounds as though both are not only doubling down, but refusing to back away. They want to pull every single lever they can, and that includes in the court of law. Now, one of the things we have heard Trump start to talk about and really repeat the last several days is this idea that, if the courts don't rule in his favor, if they do stop the troops from going into a place like Chicago, he might have to invoke the Insurrection Act.

Now, this is important to note, because this is something that hasn't been invoked since 1992 during the L.A. riots. That was when George H.W. Bush invoked it. And it was welcomed then by the California governor. Generally, in the very rare cases that it has been invoked, it has been done so at the request or at least agreeance of the state's governor.

So this would be the first time that a president, or at least in modern history, would be invoking this Insurrection Act, which would allow him to put military troops on the ground around the legal authority. But all of this, again, is going up to this ramped-up rhetoric of Donald Trump lashing out at the people that he perceives as against him or against his agenda.

And one of the things that's been very clear to us is that the White House still views this as a winning issue for them, this idea of putting law enforcement or military personnel on the ground to fight crime. And with that in mind, that's likely why you're not going to see any kind of walking back as this tension escalates.

HILL: Kristen, appreciate it. Thank you -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Turning now to the case against James Comey, the former FBI director today pleading not guilty as he made his first appearance in court in Virginia, Comey arraigned on two charges, providing false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding.

[13:05:04]

A trial date has been set for January 5. Comey's defense team, though, indicated that they plan to ask the court to toss the case, saying that it was brought unfairly by President Trump.

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig joins us now at the Magic Wall.

So, Elie, walk us through what we saw at this initial appearance.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, ordinarily, these are pretty normal routine proceedings, but we learned some really interesting and important facts today.

First of all, as you said, trial is going to begin January 5, 2026. That is 89 days from now. Just for perspective,that's before the NFL playoffs even start. That's how close we are to this trial date, extraordinarily quick, at the defendant's request. So we're going to be at trial real soon.

We also learned that the estimate from both parties is this trial will only take two to three days. That is a very short trial. That tells me, Boris, this is going to be basically a one-issue, straightforward case about, did Jim Comey lie under oath or not? It tells me also prosecutors do not intend to blow this out and turn it into some grand inquisition.

They're going to stay focused and narrow. And then the last thing we learned, Jim Comey's defense team is going to bring the kitchen sink. They're going to make all sorts of defense motions, which usually fail, but here he's going to bring, for example, as you just alluded to, a motion to dismiss for vindictive or selective prosecution, a motion for outrageous government conduct.

Those types of motions usually don't succeed, but when you look at some of the history of this case, he's got a shot. So they're going to bring some very aggressive motions to try to get this thing thrown out before it gets to a jury.

SANCHEZ: Not just the history in the case, but some of the president's own recent social media posts...

HONIG: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... the fact that there was some drama behind even bringing this case.

HONIG: For sure.

So we remember what led us here. The U.S. attorney for this district, the Eastern District of Virginia, a Trump appointee, did not want to bring this case. He didn't think the evidence was there. And so Trump essentially pushed that person out and put in Lindsey Halligan.

And what precipitated all that was a social media post by Donald Trump, where he mentioned: "What about Comey, Adam Schiff, Letitia James? They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. They impeached me twice, and indicted me five times," actually four, "over nothing. Justice must be served."

Now, days after Donald Trump put out this social media post, we had a new prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, no experience as a prosecutor, but a Trump loyalist, was put in to handle this case. She was in court today. That's why this case is about more even than Jim Comey, look, high-profile former FBI director, because it's about the president explicitly ordering his DOJ, I want you to prosecute these people because they are my political enemies.

SANCHEZ: If I recall correctly, Halligan's previous experience is like insurance lawyer in Florida.

HONIG: Insurance lawyer, yes, yes.

SANCHEZ: This all stems from testimony that Comey gave Congress back in 2020.

HONIG: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Remind us of the major players and what it involves.

HONIG: Right, so this is the testimony. You may remember it, Ted Cruz examining Jim Comey. He's appearing, by the way, by Zoom from his home in Virginia, which is why this case is in Virginia and not D.C.

The crux of the allegations here are that Jim Comey lied when he said that, as FBI director, he never authorized another person within the FBI to leak. The allegation in the indictment is that he did and that his statement was false because, as Comey knew, he had in fact authorized person three to leak about Person 1, hence the charges of false statements and obstruction about the same false statement.

So who are these people, persons three and one? We now know Person 1, the person they were leaking about, not Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton. The leaks were about the investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mail server. And, Person 3, the person who allegedly was authorized to leak that Comey lied about, Daniel Richman, a longtime friend of Jim Comey's, a professor at law school and temporarily at the time an FBI employee.

So that's the very narrow scope. Did Jim Comey authorize this person to leak about Hillary Clinton and then did he lie about that afterwards? Those are the stakes here. By the way, no Person 2, because the count in the indictment that had person two in it was rejected by a grand jury. So that's not even in the case.

SANCHEZ: Interesting.

Elie Honig, thank you so much for walking us through that.

HONIG: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Appreciate it.

Still ahead: the White House deleting a Web site reference about back pay for federal workers affected by the government shutdown, as the president suggests not all of them are entitled to back pay.

Plus, brand-new surveillance video showing former NFL quarterback Mark Sanchez moments after the altercation that left him both stabbed and now facing felony charges. We're going to play that video for you.

And, later, Disney is again raising its prices. There are some ways to save. We're going to walk you through the deals, as we continue following these stories on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:14:02] HILL: New today, missing from the White House Office of Management and Budget's Web site information on the law requiring that government workers receive back pay after a government shutdown.

The original post was on the site's list of frequently asked questions. You can see it here. It cites the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019. That's a law that President Trump signed into law during his first term, which -- quote -- "provides that upon enactment of appropriations to end a lapse, both furloughed and expected employees will be paid retroactively as soon as possible after the lapse ends."

So that important information was removed just as President Trump and the White House began to question whether furloughed federal workers should in fact be entitled to back pay. When asked about that, House Speaker Mike Johnson today said he believes federal workers would be paid under the law.

And then he was also asked about a stand-alone bill to ensure members of the military are paid during the shutdown. Here's his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Hakeem Jeffries and the House Democrats, as Leader Scalise said so well, are clamoring to get back here and have another vote because some of them want to get on record and say they're for paying the troops.

[13:15:07]

We already had that vote. It's called the C.R. Every Democrat in the House except one voted against it. They voted that they did not want the troops to be paid. They did not want TSA agents to be paid. They did not want air traffic controllers, Border Patrol agents and all the rest.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Joining me now to discuss, Democratic Senator of Arizona Mark Kelly.

Senator, nice to have you back with us.

Johnson actually went on to say after that -- and I'm quoting him here -- "The ball is now in the Senate's court."

How long are you willing to keep this government shut down going at this point?

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Well, Erica, let me make this perfectly clear. This shutdown is because Republicans in the House in the Senate and the White House, they control all three parts of the government.

And this is about the cost of people's health care, right, rising premiums across the country. Millions of people may lose their health insurance because they can't afford it. That's all this is about. In my state, 109,000 people could lose their insurance, and that means those people are one accident or illness away from being bankrupt.

And what Mike Johnson needs to do is, he needs to bring the Republican House members back to Washington, D.C. They have been on this extended summer vacation. They have only worked 14 days since July 25. That's not working for the American people. He knows how to fix this. We need to negotiate, but to negotiate, they have to be here.

HILL: So, in terms of those negotiations, I know that you said over the weekend that in conversations with some of your GOP colleagues, they have acknowledged that the subsidy issue is solvable.

What would you need in terms of guarantees from Republicans to vote to reopen the government to solve that issue?

KELLY: Well, if they say it's solvable, why don't they work with us to come up with a solution? That's all we need.

Now, right now I can work with my Republican Senate colleagues, and we're having these discussions. They know these premiums are skyrocketing, but, in the state of Arizona, the Republican House members, they're not here. And Mike Johnson should be incentivized to bring them back.

But, for some reason, he doesn't want to discuss this. He also needs to get the president more engaged on this. The president has spent about one hour, that's it, negotiating on this over the last several months. They knew that this was coming.

Erica, I have constituents. I mean, I have heard a number of stories now. There's a woman, Robin in Northern Arizona. Her premium is going to go up from $250 a month to over $1,000 a month. And what she told me is that this isn't about immigrants. This is about people like her.

And she's going to have to drop her health insurance if we do not have a solution. And, unfortunately, right now, it doesn't seem like the Republicans in the House and the Senate want to try to fix this problem.

HILL: In terms of those negotiations, as you note, the House is not in session at this point. But Speaker Johnson has said, look, we don't need that much time to get this done. We just -- if they would just -- if Senate Democrats would vote to reopen the government, we could get this all done pretty quickly, even before November.

In your mind, what is the timeline? If you could again get those guarantees that the negotiation would happen, how long do you think you would need to have those discussions to get to a point where you are comfortable with the subsidies and...

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: We could do this right now. I mean, we can solve this problem today.

HILL: So you don't think there's that much of a gulf between you and Republicans at this point? KELLY: Let me give you an example. Like, the top five states that are

going to see premium increases, they're all states represented by two Republican senators.

Those premiums are going to go up in excess of 300 percent. We're talking about West Virginia, Wyoming, Alaska, Mississippi, Tennessee. They should be motivated to do this. I have talked to some of those members. They know this is about to happen. They want to fix this.

So all it takes is a negotiation. We could just do an extension. That solves the problem at least for the length of that extension.

HILL: I also want to get your take on some of what we have heard in the last 24, 48 hours, so the president floating this idea of not paying furloughed workers, despite signing that 2019 law which would guarantee that they receive back pay in the event of a government shutdown.

Do you believe those employees should be worried today?

KELLY: Well, I think they should always be worried when you consider the occupant of the White House. He's talked about breaking the law probably multiple times today, arresting the governor of Illinois and the mayor of Chicago. I mean, that's unprecedented in our country's history, as far as I know.

[13:20:00]

The president signed that 2019 law. That was a bill that he signed. So he'd be breaking the law that he enacted. They should be -- they should get their back pay. That's the way this is supposed to work.

HILL: Do you believe it will work that way?

KELLY: I hope it does.

HILL: OK.

KELLY: I mean, they deserve to be paid. Our military members deserve to be paid. The American people deserve to have this problem solved.

But I will tell you how this can't end. This can't end with millions or 10 million people losing their health insurance because it's unaffordable. I mean, if it ends like that, rates are going to go up for everybody because we're going to have a smaller pool of insured people.

HILL: The president also singled out...

KELLY: And those folks -- go ahead, Erica.

HILL: Sorry.

Well, I was just going to say, the president also -- in talking about this, he also singled out different groups of workers. I just want to play a little bit more of what he had to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For the most part, we're going to take care of our people. There are some people that really don't deserve to be taken care of, and we will take care of them in a different way, OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: There have been a number of questions since the shutdown started about how this would be approached. There have been threats of cuts even of wholesale agencies, those comments from the president about different groups being handled in different ways, on the heels of him talking about cutting -- quote -- "Democrat agencies."

Do you have a sense today of which government employees and which agencies are potentially being targeted?

KELLY: Well, I don't look at our federal government as agencies that are Democratic agencies or Republican agencies. We're one people, one nation. We have one government. The president should not be picking winners and losers.

But if you see how he operates and how his family operates, that's exactly what he tends to do. He rewards people that are loyal to him. He tries to punish people just for exercising fundamental rights under our Constitution. And if you disagree with him, you could be targeted. I think, in that statement, he made that perfectly clear.

HILL: Senator Mark Kelly, we appreciate your time this afternoon. Thank you.

KELLY: Thank you.

HILL: It was one of the most destructive fires in California history, destroying thousands of homes, businesses, lives. Now, nearly a year later, we are just learning of an arrest tied to the deadly Palisades Fire.

We have those details for you after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:27:10]

SANCHEZ: We're tracking some breaking news from the West Coast.

An arrest has been made in the investigation of the horrific fire that ravaged the Pacific Palisades area of Los Angeles, killing 12 people, scorching more than 23,000 acres back in January. Officials have just released this photo of the man they accuse of maliciously starting the blaze. They're tying that fire to something that was started nearby several days earlier, allegedly by this suspect.

CNN's Veronica Miracle joins us from Los Angeles.

Veronica, walk us through what officials laid out was the evidence against this suspect.

VERONICA MIRACLE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they had an extensive criminal complaint they walked us through step by step.

And, Boris, investigators say 29-year-old Jonathan Rinderknecht was arrested in Florida near his current home for starting this blaze. But they actually say he once lived in the Pacific Palisades about a block away from where they say, the trailhead where they say this fire was ignited.

So they say that, on the night of the fire, he was actually driving for Uber and had dropped off two passengers in the Pacific Palisades. They go on to say that this fire was actually started in the early morning hours of January 1 on New Year's Day. And they originally called it the Lachman Fire. This was the originally the Lachman Fire.

And firefighters, they quickly suppressed it. They got on scene very quickly and it was visibly out. But what people didn't know, what firefighters didn't know is that it was smoldering underground for about a week in root systems and dirt. And one week later, on January 7, when there were very strong winds, those winds kicked up the dirt and kicked up all of the smoldering embers, and that eventually became the deadly Palisades Fire.

So, before the fire began, investigators say there were clues that had pointed them to Rinderknecht. He apparently used ChatGPT to produce an image of a city burning with people running away. They also say that he was listening to a French song. He apparently grew up in France and was listening to the song repeatedly.

And in the music video of that song, the main character is lighting things on fire. They also say that he was the only person in that location at the time of the fire. And they also have a surveillance image of his car near the trailhead when that fire was erupting on January 1.

So investigators say that they have beyond a reasonable doubt -- they have a tremendous amount of evidence that points to Rinderknecht starting this fire, Boris.

SANCHEZ: And, Veronica, what possible punishment is he now facing?

MIRACLE: Well, he's facing one felony count, one federal felony count, destruction of property by means of fire. And that can result in a minimum of five years in federal prison, up to 20 years in federal prison.

He's going to be in court today in Orlando, near where he was arrested yesterday, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Veronica Miracle, thank you so much for that reporting.