Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Calls for Adams to Resign or Be Removed are Growing Louder
In case you just tuned into this soap opera, here is a summary up through Friday. The villain, New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D), is trying to prove that New York politicians are just as corrupt as New Jersey ones, but can be bought far cheaper (no gold bars required) and are thus a better bargain. Adams is none too sharp and SDNY indicted him for conspiracy, bribery, fraud, soliciting foreign campaign donations, and other counts. Donald Trump, who is trying to prove that Florida politicians' corruption exceeds those of the northern states, is trying to offer Adams a Get Out of Jail Free card in exchange for his helping to round up people in NYC to deport. Adams happily accepted, so Trump ordered acting Deputy AG Emil Bove (Trump's former defense lawyer) to drop the case. Formally, this has to be done by the judge in the case, Dale Ho. Bove ordered acting U.S. Attorney for the SDNY Danielle Sassoon, a conservative Republican who clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, to do it. She refused to play politics, sent Bove a detailed stinging letter explaining why dropping the case would violate the oath she took, and resigned. So did another of her SDNY colleagues and five lawyers in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section.
In case you're wondering how Republicans in Congress are reacting to losing conservative career prosecutors after the DAG offered a quid pro quo to Adams, they're doing what one is supposed to do during an earthquake: duck and cover.
On Friday, the latest episode aired. Bove met with the attorneys in the public integrity section of the DoJ and gave them an ultimatum: They had an hour to find someone to sign off on the dismissal request or they would lose their jobs. After discussing it, a senior litigation attorney nearing retirement agreed to sign to protect the younger lawyers. The request for dismissal was filed Friday night. Of course, the only one who should actually lose his job is Bove, for these incredibly unethical actions.
Now Judge Ho has to decide how to handle this. He will probably hold some kind of hearing and make Bove answer some tough questions. If he finds the request to be improper or in bad faith, he can deny it. He can also refer Bove to the Office of Professional Responsibility for further inquiry. Bove's law license could also be at risk for unethical and corrupt conduct and abuse of power.
You win some, you lose some. In the Florida Mar-a-Lago documents case, Trump pulled the amoral Judge Aileen Cannon, who threw the case out on the grounds that all special prosecutors are unconstitutional because they weren't confirmed by the Senate. She is the first judge in 50 years to think like this. Out of the box, Aileen!
Ho looks to be a less "lucky" draw. He was born in California and graduated from Princeton and Yale Law School with honors. For those readers not in academia, these are considered to be respectable backups if a person cannot get into UCLA or Berkeley. After graduation, Ho clerked for Judge Barbara Jones, who now has been monitoring the entire Trump Organization since 2022. Ho later had a leadership position in the ACLU and ran a racial justice clinic at NYU. Joe Biden nominated him as a judge in the SDNY in 2021. During Ho's confirmation hearing, Republicans dumped all over him for being a "wild-eyed sort of leftist," presenting as evidence things he had said and written. The conservative Judicial Crisis Network was so afraid of Ho that it launched a $300,000 TV ad campaign against him. Nevertheless, he was confirmed 50-49. Ho would probably not be Bove's first pick for the judge, but this is what he is getting. Ho will apply the law. He will not play games.
Seven former US Attorneys from SDNY also weighed in to praise Sassoon for her bravery and take Bove to task for threatening to investigate her, writing: "Her commitment to integrity and the rule of law reflects the finest traditions of the Southern District United States attorney's office and the Department of Justice." The former U.S. attorneys who signed the letter were Mary Jo White, Robert B. Fiske Jr., John S. Martin Jr., James B. Comey, David N. Kelley, Geoffrey Berman and Audrey Strauss.
Lurking in the background is a New York State law that gives the governor the power to remove mayors for cause. Many politicians are calling on Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) to ask Adams to resign, and if he refuses, to use her power to remove him. No mayor has ever been removed this way, so there is no precedent, but the law is unambiguous. Hochul has the power. Hochul has said she is reviewing her options.
Among the people calling for Adams to resign or be removed are Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado (D-NY), NYC Comptroller Brad Lander (D), State Sens. Michael Gianaris, John Liu, Zellnor Myrie, Jessica Ramos (all D), state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D), Assembly member Zohran Mamdani (D), and former DNC Vice Chair Michael Blake, among others. Most national Democrats are keeping their powder dry—so far. Exceptions are Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Laura Gillen, both New York Democrats. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is channelling his inner Susan Collins and saying he is "concerned."
Adams claims he is innocent, is not part of a quid-pro-quo scheme, and is not going anywhere. From his point of view, if he resigns, he will no longer be of use to Trump and Trump will also be furious that Adams double-crossed him, so the open-and-shut case will be prosecuted and Adams will spend decades in prison. Resigning has no upside for him.
Hochul is in a bind. There is no question she could fire Adams. But how? She would have to give him due process or he would fight his removal in court. She would have to figure this out on the fly. For example, she could hold a "trial," ideally presided over by the chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, Rowan Wilson. The prosecution could be led by some city leader—for example, the speaker of the New York City Council, Adrienne Adams (no relation to the mayor). Adams could pick whomever he wanted to lead his team. After each side presents its arguments, Hochul would render the verdict. Given an arrangement like this, Adams would not have much basis for winning a subsequent court case.
Suppose Adams resigns or is removed. What then? New York City has plenty of vice, but does not have a vice mayor. The city charter lays out the order of succession. First in that line is Public Advocate Jumaane Williams. Next is Comptroller Brad Lander. If either became acting mayor, he could run for a full term in November. In fact, Lander is already running.
Hochul is well aware of who Williams is, since he ran against her for governor in 2022 and lost. We doubt she has forgotten. Hochul is also well aware that Williams has long been a strong critic of Israel and supporter of the Gazans. If he becomes mayor and runs for a full term, his past positions on the Middle East could be a problem for him. New York City uses ranked-choice voting for mayor and some other offices. Voters can pick up to five candidates, ranked from 1 to 5. This could allow voters who don't like Williams' positions on the Middle East to vote for someone else as #1 and then Williams as #2 or #3.
Hochul herself is up for reelection in 2026 and her reelection is by no means a done deal. One or more politicians unhappy with her decision about Adams could challenge her, either in the primary or general election. Her decision is bound to be a major campaign issue she will have to defend. Depending on what happens next, a downstream consequence of all this could be a Republican mayor of NYC in Jan. 2026 and a Republican governor of New York State in Jan. 2027. A heavy weight is resting on Hochul's shoulders. She really needs to get this one right. (V & L)
People Will Soon See the Effects of the Government Layoffs
Right now, lots of people are cheering Elon Musk for decimating the big bad government. Within a few months, they will begin to see the effects. The fire season in Arizona will begin soon. In the past, the U.S. Forest Service has sent workers to this key swing state in advance to be ready when the blazes start. This year, that won't happen due to personnel cuts at the USFS. If a wildfire gets out of control, it will be up to the Democrats to scream: "It got out of control because Elon Musk fired all those supposedly useless, inefficient Forest Service firefighters."
Operation Musk has also fired 780 people in the National Park Service. This will result in canceled tours, closed visitor centers, and trails that are not maintained. People love the National Parks. It will be up to the Democrats to hold a press conference at some closed visitor center to explain exactly who thinks having visitor centers in the National Parks is a waste that deserves to be eliminated by some 22-year-old Muskrat hitting the DEL key on a laptop in D.C.
Cuts at the General Services Administration could affect millions of Americans who use Login.gov for access to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If it has glitches, Democrats should yell from the rooftops whose fault that is. If people then call and no one answers, same thing.
Another mass firing occurred at the National Nuclear Safety Administration, although it has been partially reversed. If there is a safety incident with a nuclear weapon, part of dealing with it should involve pinning the blame on the right team.
Some of the firings are counterproductive to the administration's goals. Up to 800 staff at the Bureau of Land Management are being let go. This office is in charge of drill, baby, drill on federal land. To do that, they need land-use planners, realty specialists, environmental scientists, engineers, and more. If the people aren't there, energy production on federal land won't increase.
In some cases, cost-cutting measures are hitting red states hard. The largest employer in Alabama is the University of Alabama at Birmingham. It has received over a billion dollars from the National Institutes of Health in recent years. That is on the chopping block. Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) is all in favor of cutting out wasteful spending on unimportant things like research on health care—as long as the cuts don't hit Alabama—and she is starting to squeal.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who grilled Robert Kennedy Jr. during his hearing and then voted for him twice, has been informed that NIH allocated $228 million in funding to Louisiana in F.Y. 2023 and now realizes that it is in danger. He said: "Of course, I want research done for the sake of my people in Louisiana." Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC), a Trump loyalist, is unhappy with cuts that will affect the largest research park in the country, North Carolina's Research Triangle, which contains three top research universities. In other words, Republican senators are big fans of cutting the budget and firing people—except when the effects can be felt in their own states. They would prefer all the cuts to be in California.
The on-again, off-again funding freeze is affecting farmers. Aaron Pape, a Wisconsin farmer who raises livestock, signed a $240,000 contract to help him improve the watering system on his 300-acre farm. He spent the money and is expecting the federal reimbursement in the contract. Now that the money is frozen, he may not be able to make his next farm payment and may lose the farm.
Other farmers also signed contracts to get some of the billions of dollars in Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Many of them will also be in trouble if the money is delayed by court battles. The sudden death of USAID has hit farmers hard who sold their grain to it. All of a sudden, they have no market, while millions of dollars worth of grain is sitting at U.S. ports. Many rural areas are dependent on federal contracts and farm subsidies and their abrupt stop could leave them reeling. Of course, whether this changes their opinion of Donald Trump remains to be seen. (V)
It's Open Season on Musk
Willie Sutton was once asked: "Why do you rob banks?" to which he logically replied: "Because that's where the money is." Quite a few people who are unhappy with the Musk/Trump administration have figured out that suing Donald Trump is complicated because he is officially the president, maybe the king, but Elon Musk is just a private citizen. Furthermore, as Sutton noted, that's where the money is, so they are suing him personally.
Two lawsuits against Musk, one from the states and one from federal employees, are based on a provision of the Constitution that says that officers of the United States must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, which Musk has not been. The lawsuits state that he is exercising the powers of an officer of the United States without Senate confirmation, and that violates the Constitution. D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan got one case on Friday and indicated that it was legitimate, but did not issue an emergency order to halt Musk's access to federal computer systems. She said "bad things could happen" is not a strong enough reason to justify an emergency restraining order.
Ironically, some of the jurisprudence cited in the case comes from... Aileen Cannon. She threw out the indictment Special Prosecutor Jack Smith brought in the Mar-a-Lago documents case because Smith was not personally confirmed by the Senate. Now the plaintiffs are citing her ruling to claim that neither was Musk confirmed by the Senate and so everything he is doing is unconstitutional. At the time of Cannon's ruling, Donald Trump claimed that it was "brilliant." But now... well, let's just say her chances of being promoted to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not improve this week. (V)
Sometimes the Battles Are Personal
Doris Kearns Goodwin's famous book Team of Rivals, about Abraham Lincoln's cabinet, showed how Lincoln's choices indicated his political brilliance (and his willingness to control his ego in service of broader goals). Donald Trump has also appointed numerous "rivals" to his cabinet, but it may not work out as well for him as it did for Lincoln. Based on Trump v1.0, if Goodwin writes a book about Trump's new appointees and allies, it might be called Pit of Vipers. These could be some of the chapters:
- Steve Bannon vs. Elon Musk: This bash is already in full swing. Steve Bannon was
one of the original MAGA Militiamen and does not trust the opportunistic Elon Musk one whit. Bannon has already
called Musk "truly evil." Musk responded: "Bannon is a great talker, but not a great doer. What did he get done this
week? Nothing." Maybe Bannon convinced thousands of the people who listen to his podcasts to see Musk as a snake.
This is not going to play out well.
- Mike Johnson vs. John Thune: The House and Senate leaders don't hate each other
personally, but they run very different chambers, with different rules and different margins. Also, they got their
jobs by different mechanisms. Right now, they are battling over whether to put all of Trump's priorities into one
megabill or two minimegabills. Compromising on 1½ bills is not an option. Johnson has to deal with a tiny margin
and several hardliners whose ideas are anathema to the few coastal Republicans left in the House, but whose votes are
essential. On the other hand, except for budget bills, Thune has to worry about the Democrats filibustering everything.
Johnson doesn't have that worry and may end up with bills much too radical for the Senate and certainly for the Senate
Democrats. In addition, Thune is an institutional conservative who came up through the ranks. Johnson became speaker
because Trump parachuted him into the chair. That might not work out so well in the end.
- Tulsi Gabbard vs. John Ratcliffe: Ratcliffe used to be DNI himself in Trump v1.0 and is
probably not happy being demoted and put under a woman who knows nothing about spycraft, except maybe what she learned
from her good buddy Vlad Putin. That in itself is a formula for trouble. Also, Ratcliffe supports Sec. 702 of FISA,
which allows warrantless surveillance of non-Americans abroad, even though this sometimes picks up Americans who are in
contact with the target. When Gabbard was in Congress, she introduced legislation to repeal that section. Gabbard has to
prepare the President's Daily Brief and will need help from Ratcliffe to prepare it. He is likely to try to avoid
helping her, since he sees it as a waste of time, as Trump never reads it. Ratcliffe is a skilled professional and she
is not. It is not hard to imagine him feeding her false information designed to get her to make a fool of herself in
front of Trump. For example: "Mr. President, we have received reports of rising tensions between
Florin
and
Guilder.
Something about a kidnapping. A war there is no longer inconceivable."
- Robert Kennedy Jr. vs. Brooke Rollins: In addition to trying to get rid of vaccines,
Bobby Jr. has other ambitions, such as Make America Healthy Again. This involves food policy, which is on Rollins' turf.
She will not take Kennedy's trying to muscle in well. She is closely tied to Big Ag and he is not. For example, she
wants to force states to allow the sale of pork from crated pigs. He opposes this. She is not likely to take his advice
on this and other food-related matters. Rollins' right-hand woman, Kailee Tkacz Buller, has lobbied for the National
Oilseed Processors Association. Kennedy, along with masculinity influencers Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson, are sworn
enemies of seed oils.
- Stephen Miller vs. Sriram Krishnan: Miller is Trump's muse, especially on immigration.
Krishnan is Trump's AI adviser. They are going to collide on skilled immigrants who want H1-B visas. Miller—and
Trump's base—do not want any immigrants. Krishnan wants more Indian engineers as immigrants. To some
extent, this is a numbers question: How many holders of H1-B visas should be let in? There might be room for compromise—unless
Steve Bannon pipes up and argues the correct number is zero.
- Gail Slater vs. Andrew Ferguson: Trump picked Ferguson to run the FTC, making him the top
antitrust enforcer. Slater will lead the antitrust division of the DoJ. She is expected to go after Big Tech from a
traditional antitrust view, the way the DoJ once went after Microsoft—that is, for monopolizing some market. He,
on the other hand, is a true believer and will probably go after Big Tech for silencing conservative voices. These two
views are not really compatible and could lead to battles.
- Howard Lutnick vs. Scott Bessent: Howard Lutnick wanted to be Secretary of the Treasury
and got commerce as a consolation prize. Not a great start. It is in his interest to see that Scott Bessent, who got
treasury, is cashiered as fast as possible, to reopen the position. Bessent was fully aware of Lutnick's efforts to
torpedo his nomination and told him to "go fu** himself" to his face. They are supposed to work together on a government
sovereign fund. Good luck with that.
- Sebastian Gorka vs. Michael Anton: These two have bad blood going back to Trump v1.0,
when Gorka was a deputy assistant to the president. There was a dust-up about who wrote some speech. In a Fox green
room, Gorka blew up at Anton and yelled: "No, I'm not gonna shake your hand! How dare you try to shake my hand!" The two
are not in the same organizational unit, but they may have to try to work together on counterterrorism.
- Donald Trump vs Elon Musk: Last week, Trump and Musk were exchanging Valentine's Day
wishes. Musk tweeted: "I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man." This will not last.
Politico's senior political columnist, Jonathan Martin, wrote: "The Trump Show is a one-man play. There's not
room for anybody else, least of all somebody wealthier and with a (nearly) comparable thirst for attention." At some
point, Trump is going to have enough of Musk's stealing all the limelight, and then the fireworks will start. We doubt
that Musk will go gentle into that good night and once again become a car salesman.
Some of these pairs may work it out in the spirit of MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction—but others probably won't. If Trump v1.0 is any guide, the number of divorces will be greater than the number of stable marriages. (V)
U.S. and Russian Officials to Meet on How to End the War in Ukraine
Let us start with a bit of history. In August of 1939, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop met to discuss a subject of great interest to both of them: the future of Poland (and some smaller countries). Poland was not invited to the talks. The deal was that Germany would get the western half and the Soviet Union would get the eastern half. Within a month, the plan came to fruition and Poland was (temporarily) no more. Part of the deal was that neither of the signatories to the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would attack the other one. That didn't work out so well.
Fast forward to 2025, the White House has announced that U.S. officials will soon meet with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia to end the war in Ukraine and determine the future of that nation. Ukraine is not invited. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not pleased. He told NBC News: "I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine, never. This is the war in Ukraine, against us, and it's our human losses." Technically, he is right. Ukraine might never accept whatever deal Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin cook up, but if the U.S. cuts off weapons to Ukraine, it may not last long against what is left of the Russian Army. The E.U. could continue to help for a while, but it has far fewer weapons available than the U.S. does.
Zelenskyy has warned the U.S. and E.U. that Putin will not stop with taking over Ukraine. He said that Putin would go after other European countries, possibly as soon as the summer.
What might a U.S.-Russia deal over Ukraine consist of? It could involve a temporary cease fire followed by Ukraine withdrawing from the parts of Russia it has captured and then Russia absorbing the parts of eastern Ukraine it has captured. In return for the U.S. accepting the partition of its ally, Putin could give Trump permission to build Trump Tower Moscow, the tallest building in Europe, with the top floor being a giant penthouse gifted to Putin. Or something along those lines. (V)
Ukraine Rejects Trump's Offer on Minerals
In addition to his role as "peacemaker," Donald Trump has other irons in the fire. Last week, Trump told Volodymyr Zelenskyy that he would continue supporting Ukraine on the condition that Ukraine give America half of its mineral wealth—primarily rare earth elements used in the magnets for electric cars. In the past, Trump has opposed electric cars (possibly on the advice of his oil-industry donors), but he seems to have changed his tune now (possibly on the advice of... someone?). European diplomats were shocked by Trump's audacity, since the value of the minerals is many times the amount of aid the U.S. has given Ukraine, which is about $115 billion. Some estimates of the value of Ukraine's rare earths run as high as $15 trillion. Ukraine also has lithium and uranium. In the Ukrainians' (old-fashioned) view, when your friend is down after being attacked by a ruthless bully, you are not supposed to see that as an opportunity to screw him over. But negotiating with Trump works differently.
Is this offer now obsolete, and the new plan is for the U.S. and Russia to partition Ukraine (see above)? Who knows? Things move so fast. One complication is that most of the rare earths that Trump wants are located in eastern Ukraine—the part that would become absorbed into Russia itself. Would Trump accept a deal in which the minerals he and his co-president, Elon Musk, want would suddenly be inside Russia?
Ukrainian officials know that one of Trump's negotiating strategies is to make a wildly unrealistic and absurd first offer so that a later outrageous offer will seem reasonable by comparison. Consequently, they rejected Trump's bid. They are working on a counteroffer. They want a guarantee of their territorial integrity as part of the deal. That would mean in the event of Russia coming close to taking over the whole country, the U.S. would intervene militarily to save it. Trump is not likely to swallow this. But this is likely THEIR outrageous first bid. What they might be hoping for is a final deal in which multiple U.S. companies would be allowed to bid against each other to buy Ukrainian minerals before any foreign companies were allowed to bid.
The Ukrainians understand U.S. politics. As it turns out, Ukraine has a surplus of eggs at the moment. Would Trump perhaps be interested in getting millions of eggs as part of the deal? Trump is trying to bring down egg prices and might see that as an eggscellent idea.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made an interesting comment about the rare earths deal. If the U.S. has a major economic interest in Ukraine's minerals, Trump will be unlikely to allow Vladimir Putin to steal them. If Graham is right, this deal with Ukraine could make Trump think of Ukraine as his business partner and Putin as his enemy. But if Trump didn't allow Putin to take over eastern Ukraine (and the rare earths) what would they discuss in Saudi Arabia? This is what seat-of-your-pants diplomacy looks like, it would seem. (V)
Trump's Media Company Lost over $400 Million Last Year
Donald Trump does everything bigger than anyone outside of Texas. This includes his media company, Trump Media & Technology Group, which owns his boutique social media app Truth Social. Last year, it lost an impressive $400 million on revenue of $3.6 million. This is a worse performance than in 2023, when the company lost $58 million on revenue of $4.1 million. It is not easy to lose that much money on a company that consists of a few servers and some technicians to run them. The report said that the losses resulted from a revenue sharing arrangement with an undisclosed advertising partner.
Trump, the most popular user on Truth Social, has 9 million followers. By way of contrast, Elon Musk has 101 million followers on eX-Twitter. Only one of them is happy about this score.
CEO Devin Nunes, a former Republican congressman, explained the performance: "After going public and listing on NASDAQ less than a year ago, TMTG developed quickly in 2024, and this year we aim to continue growing all our platforms." Aha! That explains how they lost $400 million. How does it survive like this? When it went public, people paid to buy the stock. The company still has $776.8 million in the bank, but at this burn rate, that won't last 2 more years.
After winning the election, Trump's shares in the company were worth about $4 billion on paper. He owns more than half the stock. It closed on Friday at $30.39, which puts the capitalized value at $6.5 billion. This makes it more valuable than companies like U.S. Cellular, Whirlpool, Abercrombie & Fitch, Sunoco, and Shake Shack, to name just a few well-known actual companies. Economists who believe markets price stocks rationally, based on current or expected future earnings, might have some explanation for this valuation, but we don't—at least not one using any definition of "rational" we are aware of.
The company is planning to get into the crypto business and has filed for a trademark on the name "TruthFi." It plans to integrate TruthFi into the social media site to allow Truth to scam Trump's followers out of their money with a simple click of a button. Note this is separate from Trump's other crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, which is also hemorrhaging funds. It is also separate from the $TRUMP coin. The Donald is a genius at thinking of new ways to separate his supporters from their money. But not all the credit is due Trump himself. He said that he was influenced by his youngest son, Barron, who showed him his [Barron's] crypto wallet. A financial dynasty in the making?
It's Going to Be a Measle-y Future
Robert Kennedy Jr. has been secretary of HHS for less than a week and already there is a major outbreak of measles in Texas. Many people were expecting a measles outbreak on Kennedy's watch, only not so soon. Observers on the scene expect that up to 300 people may have been infected so far, but the epidemic is hardly over.
Measles is easily prevented by simple vaccinations. Does this outbreak have anything to do with vaccinations? In the immortal words of Sarah Palin, "you betcha." The outbreak is in Seminole, TX, a town of about 6,300 in rural West Texas, midway between Lubbock and Odessa. It is a vast, flat region of ranches, cotton farms, and peanut farms. There is a large Mennonite population there. The Mennonites believe in total separation from the outside world. Gaines County, of which Seminole is the county seat, is a popular place for Mennonites to settle because it does not regulate private schools. That includes vaccine mandates.
About 18% of the children in the county are not vaccinated, which is why it is currently the measles capital of the U.S. and a bellwether of what could happen to the whole country if Kennedy convinces Trump to get a pliant Congress to pass a law stating that no state is allowed to require vaccinations for children to go to school. Such a law could include a provision stating that any state having such a requirement would lose all its federal funding.
Measles is no joke. It is extremely contagious and can be fatal. You didn't think it was contagious? This health worker, who is testing a young girl for measles, might beg to differ:
Measles can spread not only in schools, but in other ways. Some people in Gaines County go to Lubbock to shop in big box stores. The virus can spread there easily. It takes two measles shots to provide complete immunity. One is generally given at age 1 and the second one at age 4. Children younger than 1 have no immunity and children between 1 and 5 have some, but it is not perfect. (V)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones