with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. today will hit donald trump right in the wallet, but will it hurt him or help him on the campaign trail? tonight on laura coates life. $83.3 million in damages for defaming ee jean carol. that is a pretty bitter trip pill for donald trump, for anyone to swallow.

for someone who built his political career, of course, on the notion he is a billionaire, maybe not so much. whether or not that is literally true. none of this is final until the judge signed off on all of it, but as we saw, it has not stopped yet, the former president from making it politically. he went on social media with one of his all-time favorite charges, that phrase, say it with me now, witchhunt, and claiming there are legal systems being used as a political weapon. but here's the thing. to damages that are vastly bigger than anyone expected allow him to frame all of this as an attack against him? after all, more than half of voters in our new hampshire exit poll said donald trump would be fit for presidency, even if he is convicted of a crime. joining me now are gwendolyn, a former da in dekalb county georgia, and rena shaw.

i'm so glad both of you are here, but first of all i have got to get your reaction to this, when thinking about that this is an $83 million verdict. i mean, this is not the 5 million from last year. this is also not a trial about whether sexual abuse occurred it has already been decided. what your reaction to this number? >> it is a statement number, i think we can all agree on that. to break it down, there's a certain element that compensates ms. carol for repairing her reputation. i believe that amount was about $18.3 million, and then it is a $65 million statement, in terms of punitive damages. that is the punishment aspect. so, i think the jury, again, making this decision and less than three hours, was very convinced, based on the evidence that they saw, and they wanted to send a message. >> they did send a message, and it was unanimous of course as well. and his message in the campaign trail has been everyone is against me, they are really after you, they are trying to

get through me, this is yet another example, but it might not swear, because, of course, it is not a criminal trial. it was a trial that was brought by a plaintiff in a federal court at the civil level, but that doesn't stop him. >> and it doesn't really make its way down to many people. they don't see the difference between criminal and civil, they just see trump is being victimized again. and it is almost one of those moments in which you have to say who is really the victim here? because this is not be believe all women crowd, when you talk about today's right. they have been this way for a while. they don't want to believe that e. jean carroll suffered anything from trump. he has even said that he didn't know her. they believe that could anything that he says is faxed to them. so that is a place you are operating from, number one, but with e. jean carroll in particular, something that has been so troubling for me in watching how the right has treated her for years now is that trump continues to perpetuate the myth and his attorneys do too that she has

been put up to this by someone else and this is a moment in which i have to say why would a woman in the twilight of her life, having achieved what she has achieved in her life, why would she want to go down like this? why would she pursue this? she is in pursuit of the truth it seems and want accountability for something she was wrong for, but again this is not a message i expect to make its way through the noise. >> interestingly enough, you heard alina, attorney for trump on the courthouse afterwards attacking not only the system itself, but the new york jurors, it was a foregone conclusion, people being influenced, you know, in ways they shouldn't have been to even bring the case, but on that last point about defamation, defamation, as you know, requires there to be a lessening of one reputation. they are arguing no, no, it was enhanced. you are now heroic to people, what is the damage? >> i think that is an argument that is a huge stretch. again, as remiss said any woman that has the courage to bring charges and hold folks accountable even for the types of horrendous things that we heard said, that takes real

courage. and so, to say that they somehow benefited from that, nothing could be further from the truth. we've seen quite a few people on the other side of the types of attacks, and all of them are looking to get some sort of compensation for their reputation to be put back to where it was. >> what you make of this claim that this is all biden's doing? this is a biden doj, you are smiling, because you are looking at all of the different courts, and who is really the puppet master of all of these things? the question presumes the conflation that everyone is doing, that there is one mastermind behind all of these cases. it is not so here. >> that is definitely not true. and let's realize we are talking about civil cases and different criminal cases per. particularly the criminal room, we have grand juries coming in, ordinary residents who have evaluated the evidence and determine their sufficient evidence to go forward and in

many of the cases they will ultimately go to a jury we can pursue. so, again, it's citizens will be making those ultimate decisions. but on the civil side, again, these are individuals where there is documented evidence, the courts have ruled in their favor in various motions throughout the trial. this is not a larger conspiracy with all of these different players and all of these different cases. >> you wouldn't know that it's 284 days away from a general election. because right now we are not talking about someone who once to be the presumptive nominee in terms of policy arguments. we are talking about 91 charges, 83 million nikki haley posted on x and said this. donald trump wants to be the presumptive nominee and we are talking about $83 million in damages. we are not talking about fixing the border. we are not talking about tackling inflation. america can do better than donald trump and joe biden. so obviously there's the political aspect of all of this. and what is not being talked about? the room, the distraction.

he is using that to his advantage. >> more than a distraction. in the court of public opinion he knows that he wins every time that he spends. and that is why he has alina, a woman who is grossly unqualified to represent him, yet she does the job that he wants. every time she leaves the courtroom she goes out to the cameras and she spins it, because again, with his base of support, and it has made its way to even more modern republican members. they have drank it, saying it does feel conspiratorial. so, what nikki haley is doing and tried to bring an honest message of saying, this is too much for us, let them go deal with his problems on its own, it will not work, because in the past there have been overtures made to try to have trump's legal bills paid for by the organ organization. we have not even gotten enough to know if that has been happened. there are legal bills that have been paid by various entities

that go right back to the rnc, where any members of congress willing to talk about his committal squash all of this so the general public continues to think trump is being victimized, democrats are the demon and you need to show up at the ballot box because he is putting you first. >> speaking of the ballot box, there's a focus on the number of states, georgia on our mind, it is true, when it comes to not only voting, it is true when it comes to finding willis and the state level prosecution and rico charges. i mentioned the word distraction. we are talking about from the perspective of nikki haley, politically of donald trump, but there's also a scandal that is brewing in georgia, with respect to whether what is being alleged there is a distraction. what is your take? you were a georgia prosecutor. you must have an opinion. >> i do. >> i will lean forward. >> look. we all know that divorce cases are emotional, they are messy and very often they leave people in their late. and unfortunately that is what we are seeing in this case there. regardless of what happens in that case, the fact remains,

one, that we are not talking about the evidence. remember, this is a case where two sets of grand jurors, again, a grand total of about 40 or so regular citizens, past judgment and decided there is significant evidence to bring the charges. this da now has four defendants admit guilt in open court, going through their rights, admitting, under oath, that they committed the various elements of the charges that they ultimately pledged to and what people are forgetting is that all of that is proceeding. we have the calls on tape, from january 2nd. that is not a question. but we are not talking about that evidence anymore. so, again, i think we all need to wait and allow da willis to respond officially. she is required to do so by next friday. and then let's see what the judge does. but based on georgia law, even assuming all of it is true, she is not required to be disqualified, based on georgia law, because none of it

describes a personal interest in the outcome. for her. and that is what is required. this is not a situation where there is a contingency fee, that you only get paid if you get a conviction. this is not a situation where there is a relationship a legend with a witness that may lie to improve their relationship with the da's office. again, it is a distraction, and we all, there's many of us that hope we can get back to talking about the facts of the case, and letting that work its way through the justice system. >> bless your heart for the focus. i, like you, am eager to hear about the facts and meat of the matter and we will see if we get there. thank you both so much for your insight tonight meanwhile, new pressure tonight on fulton county at the georgia state senate creating a committee to investigate allegations that she had an improper affair with nathan

wade, the prosecutor in a case. the georgia representative separately introduced an resolution to impeach da willis today and a third codefendant in the case during donald trump to ask that willis be disqualified from the prosecution, due to the allegations. judge.mcafee will hold a hearing on all of that next month. my next guest is an expert in a "new york times" op-ed he says, for the sake of the case, da willis should take a personal leave of absence and step aside. professor clark cunningham joins me now. professor cunningham, thank you for joining. you just heard my colleagues discuss the nature of the allegations and not being a disqualification or disqualifying factor. you say that if a judge decides that willis is disqualified people might not realize that it is just heard. the whole staff is disqualified and a separate state agency that has to appoint someone to

take over, tell me about what this could mean down the line of this threat is followed? >> right. well i certainly agree with your prior guest that it is too early to decide one way or the other or have an opinion about these motions to disqualify the district attorney. i, myself have said i want to see what comes in on february the second. so far the defendants haven't actually put any evidence in court. so, it is definitely too early in my view, to actually say one way or the other whether disqualification is granted, but but i believe is that the risks are very great of going forward and finding a disqualification motion, even if district attorney willis eventually prevails, because of the reality and that is what you are asking me about, laura. if the motion is granted in

february, or whenever, by judge mcafee, that her entire office is disqualified. because the power to act that derives from the district attorney is charged to a point a special prosecutor, and that really could take a long time. she has already been disqualified at the state special grand jury and it is now 18 months since that disqualification and there is still no special prosecutor appointed. >> so-- >> we could. >> on that point, if the whole office would be disqualified, that is of course, we don't know the outcome. whoever might not even pursue the prosecution. their hands are not tied, they are not bound to do whatever their predecessors have done, right? >> right. that is the even greater risk for the case. not just delay, but that the

new prosecutor who is appointed will reduce charges. that is the end of the case. so, even though there's no case that there is a risk because of these charges, it could end up in the same place, and in fact that, again happened in a disqualification, involving this da's office a couple of years ago on a police shooting situation, where he district attorney, willis, voluntarily disqualified herself, because of the conduct of her predecessor. again, it went to an appointment of a special prosecutor, and then the special prosecutor dismissed charges and decided the police officers committed crimes. so, that is a real risk. >> who is in charge of the agency that will point to a new prosecution? >> pete is the special prosecutor in georgia, he actually was the special

prosecutor that decided to dismiss the first charges against the police officers. he could appoint himself, but he could appoint a private attorney, he could appoint a district attorney. part of the problem, i gather, it may not be to fight the job. there's not resources to pay private attorney, and the existing da offices that are large enough don't want to take on this case. the other problem is, even if she prevails, donald trump and his lawyers are going to ask for an interlocutor tori, you are familiar with that. >> but might not be. let's explain what that is, professor, hold on for a second. >> sure. you know, that is an opportunity to appeal an issue before you go to a trial. and that is exactly what is happening here in the jack smith case, the district of columbia, the judge's decision there on presidential immunity is being appealed to the court of appeals, and there is a halt

on that decision being made. that could happen here as well. she could win for the moment in front of judge mcafee, but it donald trump succeeds in getting a temporary appeal to the court of appeals and then a stay, then it could be of the court of appeals for months, and then whoever loses in the court of appeals could go to the georgia supreme court and if this case does not complete before the general election, and trump is elected again he is going to argue that he cannot be prosecuted even at state court, while he is a sitting president. so the case might then go on hold for 4 years. so delay is fatal, potentially. >> professor clark cunningham, we have learned a lot about next week's hearing, a lot is on the line, thank you so much. >> a pleasure to be with you, laura. up next, trouble in the ivy league. why a big dorner says cornell has a toxic environment, and

why he says the university's presidential step down.

tonight, a bit of a nursery rhyme for ivy league schools. first came pen, next comes cornell and its president, out with the bathwater, donors have made a big ask of that school's trustee to fire martha they want her out over what is her shameful response, or lack thereof, to anti-semitism, especially compared to her swift response to the george floyd tragedy. the open letter outlines seven demands. they include scrapping ddi staffing and canceling the opening of a proposed center for racial justice on cornell's campus.

joining me know, harvard law professor, randall kennedy. professor, thank you so much for being here this evening. you believe the cornell president, based on these seven different points? that she will soon be out of the job or ought to be? >> well, on the question of will the president be ousted? two other presidents have been ousted, so that could certainly happen. on the question of whether this should happen, you know, on the basis of what we know thus far, you know, the details are rather murky. there are a couple of things, however, which seem to be quite troubling. one, the whole question of donors, big donors. you know? just because you have given money to an institution doesn't mean that your complaints should be taken more seriously than the facts warrant.

and my senses that in the reporting about this the fact that some of the donors are big donors is used as an excuse to give their complaints more credence. that is one complaint that i have. there's a second one that focuses on the attack on ddi. you know, in the attacks on ddi there is a sense of restoration. you know? the idea is, sometimes that ddi has really hurt the universities , let's get rid of ddi and make our universities great again. there's a reason why eei came to the four. it was a well-intentioned effort to make elite institutions more welcoming to people who had long been

excluded, or marginalized. women, people of color, people who-- whose sexual orientations were heterodox. you know, ddi is an effort to make these institutions more welcoming to those people who have been excluded, and that is a good thing. now, of course-- >> sometimes we look at ddi-- excuse me, i was going to say, there are people who, one, would say the road to is paved with good intentions, i've often heard that phrase and they would look at ddi that is something that is exclusionary now as a result. you don't share that particular opinion, but what you say to those who say, well, that may have been the intention, but the result is different? what is your reaction? >> my reaction is that the first of all, ddi is a catchword, a catchphrase, it

covers a lot of territory. i think that there is a lot that has been-- that is good about the ddi enterprise. like i said, these institutions are considerably more welcoming than they used to be and that is a good thing. on the other hand, that is right. there are aspects of the ddi bureaucracies that are a problem. i think sometimes people who have good intentions, you know, they go too far. one aspect of ddi that bothers me is the impulse towards compelling people. so, for instance, if you want to apply to some-- many universities actually, or get promoted at universities you are required to file so-called ddi statements, in which you

are required to talk about how you would effectuate dui ddi in your research or teaching. i think that is bad. i think that seems like a loyalty test. >> interesting. >> and that is not a good thing. so, in certain ways ddi goes overboard, but in general i think it has been unbalanced-- a useful intervention. >> well, regardless of that position it has certainly come under attack. we will see where it leads next. professor kennedy, always a pleasure to pick your brain.n. thank you so much. comingng up, cnn's presentatition of hbo'o's overt with bill marrrr.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

let's turn out to our friends at hbo, because every friday after real time with bill marr, bill and his guest answered viewer questions about topics in the national conversation. here is overtime with bill marr. >> all right, hi, cnn. stephen a. smith is over here. he is a comedian, writer and producer and hurt his new series, ted is streaming, seth mcfarlane is over here. and from california, adam chef is here. all right, here's what people want to know. what are the panel starts on the jury awarding. this happened just before i went on the air, the jury awarded e. jean carroll $8

million in her suit against donald trump. donald trump, what we think? not good, right? >> this was the suit that he got threatened to be thrown out of several times right? like how toxic do you have to be where you are too loose to be on trial for sexual assault? >> i think it is true justice. the only thing he cares about him is himself and money and going after the money is a way to bring about some real justice. >> you think he did it? >> yes, i do. >> you think he raped her and burned ralph goodman? >> i don't know. first of all the man is running for the president of the united states under part of the reason is because he wants to pick up the money to pay for his legal bills. that's what he will do he won't lose any money. secondly it will be 83 point $3

million. and i am just getting tired of seeing so much stuff targeted his direction but somehow, someway he still survives. i mean we are talking about a situation where he is still going to be the gop nominee. he is still going to be running for president, you are president biden that is the individual you will have to beat. four indictments, 91 counts. they are bringing up bankruptcies and even this particular issue with the civil case and somehow, someway he puts cats to shame, because he clearly has more than nine lives. >> you, come on. the most perfect disparity between these two people, he cares about himself, he cares about money and you have joe biden, put forth the inflation reduction act, which contains climate provisions that will probably bear fruit long after he is gone. long after he is gone. >> absolutely. >> what does he have to gain by that? nothing, except god forbid i

use the word algebra. >> i don't share your pessimism about this or the general election. the reason why joe biden will be donald trump is because, at the end of the day, america is going to want a president who is a decent human being. who doesn't on other people, who has some interest in the american people, some interest in something beyond himself. at the end of the day people are going to reject this bigoted, divisive figure. they are not going to want to put the country-- >> but they have, they have done every time except that one time. no, really. he really lost every election except the 2016. that, of course he didn't really win that one either. he didn't win the popular vote. i don't know whether he did it but i don't put anything past him.

>> has there been anyone in history-- not to say it is a cold, but has there been any point in history in which the same candidate has been put forth three times in a row, three elections in a row by the same party? >> three elections, that is a great question. >> three elections in a row. >> it could have happened with who's the guy? >> teddy roosevelt. >> well, franklin roosevelt won four in a row. >> well, you know, given the circumstances. well, no, really, you can't do that, you can't be like there's a rule war going on. there's a depression, stick with me. >> the bottom line is this. i respect the fact that you don't share my pessimism. i truly do. i understand where you are coming from. but i think that's part of the problem. i think the democratic party should share my pessimism. i think they should be on high alert. i think they need to treat him

with the seriousness that it deserves, because you are having a lot of faith in the american people. demanded get over 74 million votes. you've got people looking at joe biden, i'm not going to call him a cognitive mess or anything like that that's very disrespectful i would never speak about our president that way, but when you are 82 years of age, it is not offensive to say you are no longer a spring chicken and you don't seem to have the level of five and energy you we want you to have. you can't ignore the fact that this man is a threat. >> oh, make no mistake i take him as serious as a heart attack. i am optimistic, but we are going to have to fight tooth and nail and one of the biggest obstacles we will have to overcome is all of the efforts to prevent people from voting. we are going to have to turn out our people. we are going to have to work like never before. we are going to have to work like our democracy is on the line, because it is. and i don't-- the question i

was going to ask you, the atlantic put out an article separating sports bisects doesn't make sense. i have talked about how we separate the wnba-- it is just socialization. this is insane. >> i agree. >> okay. that is why people vote for trump. because their stuff like that on the left that people just go, i know trump is horrible, but separating sports bisects makes perfect sense, and if you think it's doesn't you can't leave the -- >> that is cutting off your nose to spite your face. >> i'm just giving you the answer to the question you are asking all night long. why do they vote for donald trump? it is not always because they like him. it's because stuff like that is kooky are to them. and there's lots of kooky or -- >> it is kooky your than trashing the capitol? what the -- . >> it is apples and oranges. apples and oranges, what is

more evil, but thinking-- what would happen if we combined the wnba and nba? >> well it would go from averaging 25 two averaging 70. you mix it up. create the mismatch and take advantage of it. >> you are both right, and i am going to tell you something i-- when you donate to the democratic party, which i have, you get to do certain things. and i-- >> i didn't even get a thank you. i gave them $1 million, twice. i didn't get-- >> i got a suit, thank you. >> yes. >> i got on a zoom with biden for 10 minutes, i got to talk to biden for 10 minutes alone. >> that was ai, by the way. >> trust me, it wasn't ai biden.

but what i took away from that is that, oh, this guy is not the world's greatest public speaker and i am now getting why people, like lindsey graham, are defending him and saying like, joe biden there is something wrong with you. which, you can look it up, and paraphrasing, because i've had 100 drinks, but he did essentially say, if you don't like joe biden as a person there is something wrong with you, you need to look yourself in the mirror. but there's a flipside and here's the flipside. >> you can like joe biden but hate capitol hill, as in-- as it has been for so many years. when you look at people, think about you, have you ever watched a trump debate? this is why i sit around and joke about and what do i have to worry about? he doesn't say anything. he goes up against democrats it will be very, very good, it will be fabulous. he hasn't said anything. nobody on the democratic side has-- what is it? the pizzazz?

i know you've got the substance, but you have got a lot of people out there preoccupied with their own lives, and they want somebody who knows how to ingratiate you- - >> that is why a debate is called a gish gallup. you disseminate so much that you -- >> we are on cnn right now. >> well, now you tell me? >> if you don't think donald trump doesn't say anything during a debate you should watch -- >> if you can't defend yourself against an onslaught of lies and >> i just said we are on cnn. >> i'm on fox what's the difference? >> but we are not supposed to swear. >> on cnn? >> no. you are going to lose this gig for me. we have got to go.

you can watch real time with bill marr on friday nights on hbo at 10:00 p.m. and then watch overtime, right here on cnn friday night at 11. up next, taylor swift becoming the latest person to fall prey to ai defects. now? the white house is weighining i

(vo) if you overdraw your account, wells fargo gives you an extra day grace period to avoid the overdraft fee. what if everything came with a grace period? like accidentally parking where you shouldn't... (driver 1) hey what about this one? (driver 2) nah.. that one gets an extra day (driver 1) somebody got lucky (vo) like having an extra day grace period?

when it comes to overdrafts, you can with wells fargo. you know, if you been online in the past 24 hours, you might have heard about pornographic ai generated images of taylor swift that were spreading across social media, like a plague.

that is until an army of taylor swift's fans, the swifties, rolled in to save the day. they posted under the hashtag, protect taylor swift, coupled with tons of real decent images of the popstar. the social media flood served as an effective stopgap measure that was enough to push the images off the main page of x to the company themselves to capture. at that point the images had already been viewed tens of millions of times. and just in case you are curious about just as good defects have gotten today, take a look at these. this is a fake, ai generated image of donald trump being arrested and another of the pope in a fantastic looking puffer jacket. both of those are fake. i want to bring in taylor lawrence, accomplice for the washington post. taylor, thank you for joining us today. there are reports that it took nearly 17 hours, i think, for x to take down these images, but

once something is online the concern that everyone has is, can it ever really go away? >> unfortunately, no. once something is out there on the internet you can be removed from one platform, usually temporarily, but that just means it makes its way all around, cross you know, deeper and darker corners of the internet. these images and videos are already being disseminated in discord servers, group chat, and message boards and once they are out there they are out there. >> just thinking about the violation of one's privacy, even if it is not an actual image of yourself, the suggestion that it is, the way that people are going to try to use it in these salacious and disgusting ways, i mean, the white house is even commenting on these images, calling it alarming, and actually they are calling on congress legislation to try to tackle the issue. is it even possible to regulate something like this? not just being reactive, but

maybe preventing it in the first place? >> well, it's really hard to prevent it in the first place, but i think the social media platforms can undeniably do better. it took 17 hours to take these images down. there's no way that that timeframe is acceptable. spreading previously, not just other celebrities, but random women, even teenagers. you know? this kind of thing can happen to anyone and it is a growing problem. so, i think it is hard to kind of stop all of it from being uploaded, but we can certainly take it down in a faster manner. >> you take 17 hours and it is purportedly an ai image of taylor swift, a huge celebrity, what would it take the average person to try to use that system to get it taken down? just think about that, america, what that would look like. i mean, next week congress is going to hold a hearing on how to protect kids online, but the

ceos of some of the entities you name, discord, meta-, snap, tiktok, x, can you talk about how low all of this will really impact regular people? >> absolutely. i mean, look, if this ai deep fake images are being created about high school girls. you have girls as young as 13 and 14 dealing with, you know, sexually explicit images, often by teenage boys. so, you know, it is affecting children and i think this goes back to protecting children online, but also protecting women online. ultimately the root of these attacks is misogyny, and you saw sag-aftra actually speaking on behalf of taylor today. in support of her, calling out those motivations. so, i wish that these platforms took online harassment against women more seriously. if that had done that and built these features in years ago we wouldn't be in this tough position that we are today. >> let's hope at least the

hearing next week moves the needle towards trying to not only condemn, but their current prevent and hold accountable those who are engaged in this behavior, particularly as it relates to children. taylor lawrence, thank you so much for joining us tonight. >> thanks for having me. up next, can we learn anything from the super bowl logo? conspiracy theorists think it reveals the whole thing. yup. we will exexplain it, nenext.

it seems no aspect of life is untouched by conspiracy theories these days, not even the sacred annual event

otherwise known as the super bowl. there's a bizarre theory going around getting some momentum that the colors of the game's logo are spilling the tea. the whole shebang is predetermined. as a like to say, what the friday? cnn's corey wilder descended to the madness. >> something is going on with this super bowl logo, is it a coincidence, or maybe a giant conspiracy, as some have said, but the nfl season scripted? what's going on here? welcome to the 104th season of the nfl. let's get to work. >> at the start of the season, the nfl launched an ad joking that the games were scripted, but many online ticket is true. for the last two seasons, the super bowl logos matched the color schemes of the two teams playing it. but the leak tells us they design these up to two years in advance.

the following season, the colors were replaced by the philadelphia eagles green and kansas city chiefs red. is this semester plan? are we all just drinking the kool-aid? was i predetermined to take with the falcons on the buffalo bills before that? no. some online are calling foul, suggesting some nefarious conspiracy theory that the league already knows what teams it wants to make the big game, and they want a predetermined outcome in our faces. this your's super bowl colors, purple and red, leaving one possible outcome for this weekend's conference championships. time will tell if they prove the nfl right again. the super bowl denies any conspiracy theory. they would say that. >> not the tinfoil hat! corey wilder, thank you so much and thank you for watching. i will be live on instagram for the afafter show. . be sure e to tune in. our coveragege continueses.

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.