what s happening, actually. when raj shah says i can t get into the specifics, jim acosta has reported he didn t want to give a tick-tock when people knew what because it is damning. their salaries are paid by t taxpayers. why aren t they engaging in transparency? when he said they could have been better he means how they put out communications statements. he means they had to go out and clean up earlier statements that they had done. and that is simply just not acceptable. as amanda said, they could be better and should be better. this is not how they are handling as a communications team. but you re right, we deserve to know more. their story on the tick-tock has had awe hole a mile wide from the beginning. a typical way the process works is the fbi would indicate to the
don t bite the hand that helps to feed you. i m talking now to the nfl. don t bite that hand. it s t taxpayers hand. don t hurt the sport that feeds you. and don t insult taxpayers whose symbol is the flag and who you are disrespecting by your actions. brian: interesting. i m wondering if sponsors start to feel it. if the sponsors that pay so much money being by far the most popular sport in america start feeling the average guy, man or woman who makes a combined $55,000 a year say i m going to avoid x product or this product because it reminds me of a league that s disrespecting a flag. that s when it will get the league s attention and union s attention. we don t know that yet. i haven t seen the ratings for yesterday s football games. i haven t seen them yet. i don t know the impact there i don t know the impact on advertisers who are sponsoring football. will they have a negative impact on them? i don t know at this point. steve: sure. the big question is going forward will prof