I like the show generally but this episode is complete bunk. I think the host and guest both realize it too from the get-go. The thesis is that present day assassins are different from those in the past in that they are less strictly political and more about mentally unstable people getting attention/recognition (narcissism). It begins by establishing a baseline that assumes assassins of the past to have a political agenda, but then uses as an example Gerald Ford’s, except they are immediately forced to admit that one of his assassins was clearly just nuts (Squeaky Frome) and that the “political agenda” of the other was incredibly irrational. Well, so was Ryan Routh’s. War Room Tom thinks Trump’s assassins were more like today’s mass shooters, which is a thought, but then uses the most absurd example (the Las Vegas shooter) instead of someone like Dylann Roof or the Pennsylvania synagogue shooter both of whom had clear political agendas. Mass shooters do also sometimes have clear political agendas. They even publish manifestos! And go back to the guy who shot Garfield. His “political agenda” was insane. The truth is clearly that this is not a new thing at all; that assassins from John Hinckley to Sirhan Sirhan almost always have some political agenda and some level of mental illness as well, like narcissistic personality disorder. It is a spectrum and always has been. Truly political assassins are rare. Entirely crazy people don’t go after politicians. It’s too hard and complicated. So when the next one appears, except a confused and confusing mix of both.

Shouldn’t the real question be why a former Israeli prisoner guard was included, accidentally or not, in a national security group chat? (Not that it’s shocking)

He took top secret documents to Florida and lied about taking them and refused to return them. Seems you forgot about this re: sharing intelligence.

While I recognize that all sides have a perspective and The Atlantic is striving to highlight that in this episode I lasted approximately four minutes before I had to turn it off. MAGA gets away with every wrong and illegal decision they make every single time and I have no sympathy for a man who made a choice on January 6th to do what he did. His wife touting her Christian and Trumpian faith that he would be exonerated—-my mental health can’t take it. This lifestyle of “the rules don’t apply to us” permeates every facet of society at this point and it is definitely not “Making America Great Again.” I don’t need to be enraged at those people any more than I already am. Moving on.

Excellent show. Just want to say to the woman with five kids who lost her husband for a year to his conviction of conspiracy for the attack on the capital…. Too bad! We feel for your kids having a loser dad but he chose to leave his family and riot. We don’t feel pity for you or him in any way. Know this. He’s a traitor to this country. Signed a progressive from NY.

Cue: Lee Greenwood

Both the interviewee Zoe Schlanger was sloppy as well as the editor, but there were some clear errors in the material presented. Firstly, both women were remiss in not explaining what PFAs are. That was a shame. How many of the listeners know what PFAs actually are? Secondly, Ms Schlanger never explained that PFAs are excreted. They are forever chemicals but not stored in our bodies forever. PFAs are literally everywhere, so focusing on what sort of stove, InstantPot, toaster oven people should buy is both simplistic and unfair, given that most of us cannot rewire our homes so we can buy a electric stove. SMH. Why do this to the listeners? She could have really been informative instead of being yet another alarmist. She should have mentioned one of many notable women researchers who have actually done the work, like Arlene Blum and her research in the 1970’s which had, as a direct response, the FDAs ban of flame retardants in children’s pajamas…winner of several awards for her science and policy work for which she was recognized by one of fifty Forbes Sustainability Leaders. Really, the material presented was so basic as to be incorrect, as I have pointed out. Can y’all sharpen up? Your readers can handle it. And Ms. Rosin, you should stop chuckling over “oh these ignorant people” when discussing questions from the audience.

Excellent podcast and spot-on. I agree with papakila that some of the examples could have been stronger (Jared Loughner/Gabby Gifford, for example), but I think papa missed the point due to the fact that his thesis (that assassins have always beeen a bit wack) is generally the same as Tom’s. Generally. This absurd pedestalizing of Trump for surviving a poor shot (rushed?) by a really sad, travic, lost kid is laughable. Great podcast.

Hanna Rosen is an amazing journalist that asks the right questions to excellent guests. The topics are timely and well researched. Again, OUTSTANDING!!

Stimulants are life changing & already so many people are worried about using them & stigma surrounds them, to frame one person’s story as a critique of this whole class of drugs is highly problematic & irresponsible. Further, another drug he used was Benzos, a drug class well known to cause many many issues for people, yet your reporting said nothing about that at all. His story was compelling & worthy of telling, but the journalist interpretation of it was uninformed & further contributed to false narratives about this class of drugs. Where was the data? The presentation of a most nuanced & complex picture? Highly disappointing to me as a mental health professional & family member to multiple people with ADHD.