♪ all right. the latest from inside the

hearing to impeach a cabinet secretary for the first time in nearly 150 years. and browsing online, just using your thoughts, elon musk just implanted a brain chip. and you thought you heard everything. conspiracy theories involving taylor swift, the super bowl and who knows what else you would not believe where they're being taken seriously. or actually, maybe would you. kate is away today, i'm john berman with sara sidner, this is "cnn news central." ♪ we begin with breaking news. just moments ago, you saw here president biden told reporters he has decided what he will do in retaliation to the drone attack that killed three american soldiers in jordan.

let's bring in arlette saenz. arlette, we heard a couple of comments a couple different things what did he say? >> reporter: well, president biden and his national security team have been working trying to decide how the u.s. will respond. just moments ago leaving the white house he told me he has in fact made that decision. take a listen very quickly to what the president had to say. >> have you decided a response? >> yes. >> reporter: now, you know that this is something that he's been deliberating for quite a few days. i also asked the president what will be different this time? of course, the u.s. has tried to respond to these type of attacks on u.s. and coalition forces in the past. but so far, these attacks have been undeterred. i asked him what will be different this time, he said, we will see. this all comes as the white house has been careful and deliberate in their language, saying they did not want to

provoke a broader regional conflict, specifically, with iran. the white house, of course, has assigned some responsibility to groups they believe are responsible for this, saying they believe it is the responsibility of iranian-backed militant groups in iraq and syria. but president biden today was also asked specifically whether he holded iran responsible for the deaths of those three u.s. service members. he told reporters that he holds them responsible in the fact that they are providing weapons to some of these groups that have carried out these type of attacks. we will see whether the white house has more to elaborate at this moment but the president is trying to strike a very delicate balance. vowing there will be a forceful u.s. response, with the hope of deterring the attacks in the future and keeping this from spreading into a wider conflict. the president is on his way to florida for a pair of political fund-raisers, showing the balance acting as commander in

chief and while also turning attention to the his re-election campaign. we have also heard that the fund-raisers are a bit more candid in his thoughts, and as the u.s. is vowing there will be a forceful response after the death of those three u.s. service members. >> so, the big head line that you helped us get, arlette saenz, is that president biden has decided on the response that is going to be made by the united states to that attack from iranian-backed militia that killed three people, three service members in jordan. that is the big news at this hour. arlette saenz, thank you so much for bringing all of that to us. john. >> with us cnn military only cedric leighton and kim dozier, global affairs analyst. kim, i want to start with you, the president's words were quite careful, i think. number one, he said iran is responsible for the funding. number two, he said he didn't

want to see a wider war in the middle east. what does that point to in terms of the response that he told arlette that he had decided on? >> well, according to cnn's reporting, it is a combination that's being considered of strikes and cyber attacks, other measures. so, i think what you're going to see, just like they have done with the houthis, that the u.s. goes after the capability. goes after the hezbollah branches inside of syria, perhaps even inside of iran, with multiple strikes against troops, weapons depots and combine that likely with more sanctions again iranian leaders and possibly a covert attack that we'll hear about later. >> colonel lleyton can you follow up with maybe more specifics on the action, where exactly they might strike here.

i have a map up that shows where u.s. troops are. so that when you consider where the u.s. will respond, you can see how many thousands of u.s. troops might be in that area. where do you see the u.s. responding, colonel, and with what. >> i think basically the video mostly in iraq. and also with syria, as kim mentioned with hezbollah, the primary group that is a iranian proxy in iraq is publicly going to be the target, it seems as if the administration has decided or the intelligence has shown that this group may have been behind the attack behind tower 22 that killed the three u.s. service members. i think what they're going to do is probably use air strikes. i think they will also perhaps, there's a potential at least, for some special operations activities and, of course, as jim mentioned a cyber attack.

so those are the kinds of things that we can probably see they will go after, command and control notes. so they will try to go after the hezbollah headquarters and personalities and that may involve a high-value target attack against individuals. but those are the kind of options that they have, and probably the most likely scenario within that area. if they want to avoid a wider war, john, they will probably not go some of the iranian assets who are helping the houthi, but that is also a possibility they could do that. >> so, kim, if we are talking about as colonel lleyton suggests there, some u.s. response in iraq. these are the outlines are where iraq is, 2500 u.s. soldiers there. it's a little complicated at this point, the united states has a somewhat complicated and increasingly strained relationship with the iraqi government. yes, these are terror forces

operating within that country but how would iraq feel if the u.s. responded there? >> yeah, the u.s. has already been inside iraq and got the prime minister and parliament talking about possibly expelling u.s. and foreign forces that are currently there at the iraqi government's invitation, when the u.s. struck a target inside baghdad, the capital. so i think they'll probably stick to the hinterland of iraq, a place that won't create such a huge response. because you have to look at the wider conflict that's going on between iran and the u.s. for influence throughout the region. iran considers those troops based in jordan, based in syria and based in iraq as being in its backyard and fighting for influence with iraqi government and other regional governments. iran wanted them out, iran is in a constant ideological war with the united states as well as

physical war being fought by proxies. anything it can do to raise the costs, raise the stakes for the u.s., that is something it wants to carry out. the white house is mindful of that. so they're going to be careful to try to thread the needle to hit those responsible, so that back in the u.s., democrats and republicans cry for response can't say we didn't do anything. but also not enough to give iran excuse to expand this conflict. >> and colonel lleyton, obviously, the other thing happening in the region right now is the war against hamas. there are these negotiation negotiations. at what point could whatever the u.s. does in response to the attack that killed three u.s. soldiers in jordan, at what point could that slow or stop the hostage negotiations? >> well, i think it really depends on hamas' reaction to this, of course, they see themselves as alied with khateeb hezbollah and other other groups in iraq supporting iran, at

least for the moment. they feel they're aligned with them. so hamas may decide to slow some of the things they're looking at in terms of the proposal. and the cease-fire proposal. that's going to be a major factor there, john. the other thing that could happen in this particular case is that there could be a wrinkle because of israeli actions in the area as well. but as far as the u.s. response is concerned, i think it depends on the degree of the u.s. response and how hamas reacts to that response. >> all right, colonel cedric leighton, kim dozier, thank you for being with us, sara. if you missed it in 1876, you can watch it play out this morning on capitol hill. the house committee is poised to vote to impeach a u.s. cabinet secretary, something they have never done in 150 years. homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas on the hot seat. this is some of what we heard in

the homeland house security committee. >> we have not approached this day or this process lightly. secretary mayorkas' actions have forced our hand. we cannot allow this border crisis to continue, for fentanyl to come across our border. and cannot allow a cabinet secretary with no regards and rule of law to remain in office. >> extreme maga republicans who are running the house of representatives are deeply unserious people. they don't want progress. they don't want solutions. they want a political issue. and most of all, they want to please their disgraced former president. the maga man impeachment of secretary mayorkas is a baseless sham. and a few rational republicans left in the house know that, even if they refuse to admit it. >> let's get straight, to lauren fox, she is joining us from capitol hill this morning where

she is every morning. lauren, this is heated, as we expected. what are you hearing? >> reporter: yeah. i mean, you are hearing republicans defending these moves saying this isn't political, that they believe that mayorkas has acted in bad faith in his job as secretary of homeland security. meanwhile, you have democrats saying repeatedly and i heard this from multiple members this morning that policy disagreements are not grounds for impeachment. they have impressed upon republicans if they are serious about wanting to fix the situation at the southern border, there is a proposal coming out of the senate that they could look at as a potential road map to fixing some of those issues that they're so concerned about. but i will tell you, sara, in talking to some of the members in this committee, including some members who hail from swing districts including repres representative lohota that i just spoke with saying he does

not support it. saying it would be irresponsible to say he doesn't back a bill without reading the text of it. and says he does have concerns, that does echo the sentiment coming from house republicans. he wrote that friday if the senate deal looks like the bill that has been reported on that he believes it will be dead on arrival in the house of representatives. i also pressed the chairman of this committee, mark green, to give me a sense of whether or not he thinks they're going to actually have the votes on the floor of the house of representatives to actually move this impeachment forward. here's what he told me. >> how confident are you guys that you're going to have the votes on the floor? >> you know, from my perspective i'm doing what is i think my duty. and votes will be what votes are but i feel pretty good, but, i mean, it doesn't matter. >> reporter: of course, it's ultimately does matter what the

vote count is when you're talking about impeaching a cabinet secretary for the first time in 150 years, sara. but i think the point he is making here is that republicans view this as an essential issue that they are taking up right now, the reality from democrats is that they view this as a political cudgel that republicans are trying to use in a presidential year. sara. >> there's certainly a crisis at the border. everyone can agree with that. how to fix it is a whole different matter. thank you, lauren fox. a new proposed hostage deal between israel and hamas, where does it stand this morning. >> and how much extra time must you have on your hands to dream up a conspiracy theory involving taylor swift, the super bowl and president biden? go grab your tinfoil hat and run. ♪ is

just moments ago, president biden left the white house for campaign events in florida today. and he was asked whether president trump should be allowed to remain on the 2024 ballot. listen. >> should donald trump be allowed on the ballot? >> as far as i'm concerned, that's fine. >> how could that be a threat to democracy. >> because of guys like you. >> his response, as far as i'm concerned, that's fine. this comes as the illinois state board of elections hold a public

meeting where they will decide whether trump will appear on the primary ballot or barred from the amendments of the insurrectionist ban. joining us laura barron-lopez and margaret talev. let me ask you about the question, you heard biden responding to. and a lot of states responding to whether former president trump can be on the ballot. his answer is a good one, let the people decide. the courts are going to ultimately. i'll start with you. >> sara you know, i think what the president seems to be doing here, i seam to be able to hear the question, a lot of times, the chaos of the chopper blades kind of haphazard, it sounded like he understood exactly what he was saying, what he was being asked and saying.

but it sounds that he is separating himself from these legal arguments. i don't think the u.s. supreme court is going to say that president biden is fine with it. i think they're going to decide it on the legal merits but as a political matter, president biden is citing that he is not joining efforts to keep trump off the ballot. i think that's interesting. and the white house is probably going to be asked questions about it. >> there was a question about the border, the southern border is an issue. biden is pledging now to shut the border down. and he's making some concessions. when you look at the situation, is impeaching mayorkas, dhs secretary, helpful in all of this? or is this just a talking point that can be used with the trump base that they did this, or they went forward with this? i will start with you, laura. >> well, i think it's certainly a talking point that republicans are going to use, sara.

sigh i mean, what it's also reflective of, how far right the house republican caucus as moved. which is something this is something long called for. they wanted to see alejandro mayorkas impeached especially since republicans took control of the house after the midterms. and they feel more emboldened because of the fact that former president donald trump appears to be running away with the nomination. and this is something that he eagerly wants to see done and he also wants to see the border deal quashed. what's striking is the difference between house republicans and senate republicans. senator james lankford negotiating with secretary mayorkas and wanting to see some type of border deal come to fruition. >> yeah, those are all good points. margaret, this morning, speaker mike johnson made clear that the

senate's immigration deal is as he put it no way forward in the house. johnson denying that he vowed to kill the senate bill for donald trump but admitted to talking to trump at length. so, do we believe him? >> well, i mean, in the end, this has now become a highly politicized issue. a lot of polling shows that immigration and border issues are supplanting americans' concerns about it's economy as economic indicators get better. and republicans want to hammer this as an election year issue. i think we've seen president biden surprise a lot of democrats, and to be honest, surprised a lot of republicans, by suggesting he wants to lean into more executive power. he wants idea with what the senate may provide him which is the idea may have more power to suspend asylum at ports of entry when thresholds hit certain numbers. on the one hand, biden could face strain inside his own

democratic side for that. on the other hand, if he knows republicans aren't going to give it to them anyway, he has nothing to lose. this allows him to posture himself and willing to take a stronger stance on immigration. and republicans are betting if they present him from getting that, voters will blame him anyhow when the crisis continues. this is now just -- there is as clearly going to be a deeply political issue. and this is also, if the house votes to impeach mayorkas, going to further weaken impeachment as an actual tool for an actual crisis. >> yeah, that's actually a really good point to be made. weak. ing of impeachment which is high crimes and misdemeanors in this particular case. i do want to talk about what nikki haley said. she is the third person in this race, weighing in on the issue. here's what she said this morning about the border. >> i haven't seen the details of this border issue. i don't think the president should say wait in the election to get this done.

we can't wait one more day. but what i do think is important that i haven't heard is they don't have the remain in mexico policy in that bill. you have to keep people from coming on u.s. soil, period. >> laura, your thoughts on nikki haley's take on all of this? >> well, look, i think she's trying to express what a number of senate republicans have said and even james lankford said, one of the key negotiators which is the entire reason that border negotiations are even in conversation right now as attached to the national security package with ukraine aid and israel aid is because republicans wanted that to happen. they demanded something on border security and immigration for their votes to support more ukraine aid. so that's why the senate is pursuing this negotiation. and then after months of saying they would potentially entertain, giving more money to ukraine, as long as border was attached, now you're hearing from a number of republicans in

both chambers saying never mind. that they don't want to support any type of deal. and so basically, pulling the rug out from under the negotiators. i think it's also an important point here, sara, that i think gets lost when we're talking about whether or not you can fully stop people from crossing the border. we don't know the details of this potential deal yet. we do know that it gives the president some pretty strong authority, expulsion authority. but one change that i think gets lost it may be a big change is and it's change to asylum law. right now under law, asylum seekers have the right to claim the right whether border entry or in between. to the idea you can stop every single migrant from crossing the border i'm not sure is an entirely realistic one. >> we only talk about the southern border and we never talk about the northern border where people also cross just not

in those numbers, laura barron-lopez and margaret talev. thank you both. new drama inside the courtroom, on the discussion between the parents of a school killer and school officials advocating for a decision before shooting took place. and the astronomical verdict against the maker of the weed killer roundup.

in san francisco, two people a day are dying from fentanyl. this is a national crisis that demands new strategies. prop f requires

single adults receiving cash assistance to enroll in treatment if they use drugs. i know what it's like to lose family to drug addiction. it's too late for some families. but our city needs to do what's necessary to save lives. pthings have gotten better recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e.

all right, new details this morning about the broad framework for a potential hostage deal between israel and hamas. let's get to cnn's chief national security correspondent alex marquardt for the latest on this, alex, what are you learning? >> well, john, we're careful to call this a framework and not agreement. what we're hearing, progress has been made notably with that meeting in paris, the egyptian counterparts and the qatari prime minister, that took place on sunday. what we've been sold by sources is that there is a broad framework, with a general understanding of how another truce, another pause in the fighting, and a hostage release could take place. with warnings, at the say time, that there are a lot of details that need to be ironed out. a lot of work needed to be done to get this across the finish line. what this generally will look like, this will be a first phase of around six weeks of pause in the fighting, during which time, all of the civilian hostages who

remain in gaza would be released. at the same time, three palestinian prisoners held in israel would be released for a civilian hostage. then we move to the pause stage. idf soldiers men and women, could be released in that pause. as well as bodies of hostages who have been killed since october 7th or some of the bodies taken into gaza on october 7th. now, there are questions about how many palestinian prisoners hamas would demand to be released for idf soldiers. there are indications that hamas would want a huge number of palestinian prisoners to be released. but, gojohn, there's still majo questions about humanitarian aid, governance of palestinians, and security setup in gaza. and longer term questions. for now, john, there does seem

to be momentum. there are words of caution but there is a olot of optimism. i asked secretary blinken yesterday and he said there's hope. >> what is the word from hamas? >> hamas isn't the only party at the table. egypt intelligence handed the proposal to them yesterday. they said today they are studying but this is where there's a fundamental disagreement, john. hamas wants to see a comprehensive agreement to end the war, israel is not yet agreeing to that. what we heard from hamas, they want the brutal attack in gaza to end, those are their words. and a complete withdrawal of israeli forces. we also have to see what the israeli positioning would be, during a pause, last time they stayed in gaza but pulled back a little bit. here you got hamas demanding that they leave. there are still sticking points, the other parties who await in paris now awaiting the response. >> alex marquardt, thank you

very much. sara. the trial for jennifer crumbley, that is the mother of the michigan school shooting back under way. jennifer crumbley's former supervisor there on the stand. earlier the school officials back on the stand, testifying about meetings with the crumbleys going through the warning signs, leading up to the shooting and what one official called, quote, odd response from jennifer crumbley in that sit-down. she faces charges of involuntary manslaughter in a first of its kind trial that could hold her accountable for the school shooting. alongside her son and potentially her husband. cnn's jean casarez is joining me now. jean, what is happening right now in court, who is on the stand? >> we just had the dean of students on the stand. he talked about the monday before the shooting, we've heard this before but he's reiterating it that ethan was in english class and he was researching bullets on his phone. the english teacher saw it. she sends an email to officials

in school. this made me think about what he's done in english glass. he's written violent things in english class this year. then on tuesday, of course, was that drawing in the early morning hours. and you saw the math sheet with all of the facts and figures, blood everywhere. my life is useless. the world is dead. and then the dean says that ethan was in the office. it was a change of classes right then. so he went into the math class and he got the backpack that we know had a gun in it now. and he took that backpack back in to give it to ethan. you're going to listen to his defense of not searching that backpack. >> did they request the search of that baggy. >> they did not. >> did you search that bag? >> i did not. i didn't think it rose to the

owe occasion. i didn't have reasonable suspension. >> explain that. >> reasonable suspension means is you have to have something of reasonable suspicious activity include searching student bodies. >> so, he was researching bullets, violent writings on the math sheet, no search of the backpack. there's a civil suit. but the discussion with parents and the concern has been for two years. now, the jury has to look at a video, and this was the video in the jail right after ethan was charged with mass murder, jennifer and james went into that jail, and they went into the room where their son was. listen to their reaction, their demeanor and ethan's. >> why? why? >> i love you. i love you. i love you.

>> i love you. i love you. i love you. i love you. [ bleep ]. >> well, that right there was the very last time that jennifer and james crumbley after saw their son, because they were charged with homicide shortly thereafter. >> this is a stunning case with lots of twists and turns but the warning signs were there. and teachers noticed it. it will be interesting to see what happens with the civil case as well. >> yes, it will. >> jean casarez, thank you. john. emon musk claims his startup has implanted a chip in a human's brain that could help

with all kinds of things with a mere thought.

has implante

on our radar this morning, a pharmaceutical company is recalling adhd and narcolepsy medication after a pill mix job. authorities say pharmacist discovered some of that, it has a drug that has the opposite effect. the company has not received reports of serious injury related to the mislabeled bottles. now, a jury has ordered the maker of roundup weed killer to pay a cancer $49 million.

and he sued after using roundup on his property two decades. the company says they will repeal it and called it unconstitutionally excessive. a rare shark attack inside of sydney harbor, not far from the iconic opera house that sits on the water. a woman was bit in the leg during a swim off a private pier. officials believe it's a bull shark. they're now warning swimmers to avoid the waters at dawn and dusk when bull sharks are most active. >> this is why you stay in lakes and pools. elon musk claims that one of his companies has placed a computer chip implant inside a living human brain. that person is currently doing well, according to musk. the implant, once in full working condition would allow people to control a computer with just their thoughts. with me now, emily mullen staff

writer covering bio technology for "wired" magazine. elon musk says a lot of things and makes a lot of claims. should we take this at face value? >> i think we should. you know, neuralink has been working up to this for a number of years now. this is a big milestone for the company. which has been developing a brain computer interface since its founding by musk in 2016. we've seen over the years neuralink doing these live stream demonstrations in which they trotted out some pigs have gotten its brain implants. and they've also implanted some monkeys. so, now, yes, we do -- it seems like the first patient has now received a neuralink brain implant. last year, neuralink said it received approval from the food

and drug administration to go ahead with a clinical trial and people to test its device. and then it also got approval from an ethics board, an independent ethics board, at a hospital site to do this. so, i think it's pretty likely that it has happened. we don't have many details beyond what elon musk has posted on the social media platform x. this person apparently got the implants on sunday. it doing well. but, of course, it's going to take some time before we know whether this actually works. >> so, you told us that neuralink is not the first company to put chips in people's brains. so what's the difference here? >> right. >> and what's the promise for this technology long term? >> so, actually brain computer interfaces have been -- researchers have been working on them now for several decades. and the final ones, you know, were made by academic researchers.

and, really, this has been a deal that kind of confines to the academic realm, up in recently. really in the past couple of years, since neuralink was founded by musk in 2016. there are now several companies that are racing to develop similar brain implants and the goal is to really help people who are paralyzed to give them back a little bit of independence that they've maybe lost, you know, being able to control a computer, sending email or a text to a friend or colleague. i mean, these are things that most of us take advantage of every day. but people who have lost the use of their limbs are not able to do this. so, as you mentioned, yes, there are other players in this space now. there's one company, new york-based synchron that has

implanted a couple of its devices inpatients with als or lou gehrig's disease who are paralyzed. and their brain implant is a little different. it's a stent-like implant that actually goes into the jugular vein. and so there's no actual brain surgery required. it's threaded up through the jugular vein and sits against the brain. but what's different here is, you know, neuralink is -- it's a musk company, right? i mean, musk has made a lot of buzz around brain computer interfaces. >> yep. it has a ring master behind it right now with the social media outlet. emily mullin, thank you for being with us. >> and he's in the field, you know. >> absolutely. sara. coming up conspiracy theorists have bad

you may know adam schiff's work to protect the rule of law, or to build affordable housing, or write california's patients bill of rights. but i know adam through the big brother program. we've been brothers since i was seven. he stood by my side as i graduated from yale, and i stood by his side when he married eve, the love of his life. i'm a little biased, but take it from adam's little brother. he'll make us all proud as california senator. i'm adam schiff and i approve this message. not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects.

katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. it's a trend that seems to keep coming up. whenever taylor swift shows up. the average super bowl ticket is going for $9,800. does the $800 matter? it is 70% more than it was last year. all of the swift energy fueling conspiracy theories about the singer and her boyfriend, chiefs superstar travis kelce. take a listen. >> now, there is an online plea circulating begging people to become niners fans. for the next two weeks, just so

it doesn't raise travis kelce, mr. pfizer's star power, along with taylor swift. it is persuadable power. this administration is locked, dead set, on harnessing that here. >> why alienate your fans, the swifties? >> they come across from every political ideology. why put yourself in one area? >> don't believe everything taylor swift says. we're begging you. >> all right. may have stemmed from 2020 endorsement by swift of joe biden. she has freedom of speech. there was the article by "the new york times" yesterday that claimed president biden would love to have her endorsement again this year. let's bring in cnn's senior media reporter oliver darcy. the fact this ended up on fox. it's been on oan and some of the more fringe, far-right publications and online groups.

but this is -- i don't know where to start. it's outrageous. >> yeah, the idea that the nfl and taylor swift and travis kelce are a part of this plot to rig the super bowl, to elevate swift and kelce so they can be wielded by the democrats as a weapon against the republicans, it is absurd, but there are a lot of people who live in this space and rely on outlets like fox or oan or the entertainers online for their news and information. so, you know, it might be absurd to people in reality, people who consume credible news, but for others, it can be seen as an attractive idea. you've seen in the past, people latch on to these outrageous conspiracy theories like qanon. this is almost in the same vein as qanon. you have an idea that there is this shadow, these shadowy

powepo po powers, right, lurking who are secretly controlling pupuppets, like apparently taylor swift. it might be tempting to dismiss this as a comedy almost, but there are some people who are going to end up buying into this idea. >> the idea is that we only have eight seconds left, but the fix is somehow in and that the chiefs are going to win the super bowl because taylor swift wants them to win? >> biden wants them to win. when they win, then, apparently, taylor swift will have even more influence so her endorsement, which is going to happen because she did endorse in 2020 -- >> i'm going over. i know 49ers fans. i lived in san francisco. there is no freaking way playing along with this. i'm just putting that out there right now. >> patrick mahomes isn't very good. the whole patrick mahomes thing, he has no role in any of this. thank you, all, so much for watching. "inside politics" up next.

in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus.

for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. things have gotten better recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e.