The political news cycle is fast, and keeping up can be overwhelming. Trying to find differing perspectives worth your time is even harder. That's why we have scoured the internet for political writing from the right and left that you might not have seen.
Has this series exposed you to new ideas? Tell us how. Email us at ourpicks@nytimes.com.
For an archive of all the Partisan Writing Roundups, check out Our Picks.
From the Right
The editors in National Review:
"We believe that Russia's interference in the election is worth investigating and that dismissing Robert Mueller would be a mistake, both politically and on the merits. Yet there are enough questions about the handling of the Clinton and Trump matters that a thorough fact-finding investigation is warranted [ …]"
The members of National Review's editorial board believe it's time to "investigate the investigators." They, like others on the right, focus on the text messages from Peter Strzok, a top F.B.I. agent assigned to Robert S. Mueller's team, to his mistress criticizing then-candidate Trump. And while they are more cautious than others on the right, calling for more "context" to understand the full meaning of his texts, they write that "the message raises the possibility that top bureau officials were infecting investigations with their personal political views." Read more »
_____
"It is dangerous to subject the office of the president to a gravely biased investigation undertaken with a reckless spirit."
Mr. Robins, who previously served as a special assistant in the office of the secretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration, calls for the entire Mueller investigation to be suspended. He worries that should more evidence of political bias against the president become public, "Americans may conclude that the justice system itself is illegitimate." Read more »
_____
"[ …] the questions about Mueller's team and its motivations are little more than a prelude to the far more important question: Is this entire investigation into the fairy tale of Trump-Russia collusion in 2016 even legitimate?"
Mr. Ryun takes the argument against Mr. Mueller's team one step further and suggests that the entire investigation into Russian collusion in the election is premised on faulty evidence and a "fake dossier." The real scandal, he argues, is "the actions of the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice in the use of the Fusion G.P.S. dossier to open their investigations and the role former F.B.I. Director James Comey and his colleague Peter Strzok played in nullifying the Clinton national security investigation." Read more »
_____
From the Left
Sarah Kendzior in Fast Company:
"Even if Mueller is not fired and the investigation reaches its conclusion, Trump will very likely disregard the findings, as he believes himself to be above the law."
Ms. Kendzior considers a possible outcome in which Mr. Mueller's investigation finds evidence of criminal activity only to have those findings met with inaction by Republicans in Congress. She finds it "hard to imagine" Republican leaders will hold Mr. Trump and his associates accountable for their actions even if they're found guilty by the justice system. Read more »
Continue reading the main story
_____
Greg Sargent in The Washington Post:
"Today's vastly different media landscape creates incentives — or at least, the appearance of incentives — for Trump to opt for a course of full-blown autocracy and lawlessness."
Mr. Sargent looks at the "double track approach" to the administration's posture toward the special counsel's investigation. One where President Trump says he won't fire Mr. Mueller, but his allies in the news media are engaged in "sustained confrontation" with the investigation. The net effect? "If Mueller ends up demonstrating conduct that is potentially impeachable, it will be easier for Republicans to wave it away and do nothing by claiming the probe itself was illegitimate." Read more »
_____
"If Trump fires Mueller, as many now speculate is possible, the United States will find itself in a constitutional crisis […]"
If President Trump fires the special counsel, Mr. Nichols thinks that citizens who want to protest should have a very specific goal in mind: to compel Congress to impeach. House Democrats in particular should make it known "their response to the firing of Mueller would be an absolute and unequivocal demand for the impeachment of Donald Trump." Read more »
_____
Finally, From the Center
Andrew Sullivan in New York Magazine:
"[…] if Trump decides to wage war against Mueller, and pits his own ego against bedrock principles of the rule of law, there's a chance he won't quite get away with it. About a 51—49 chance."
Mr. Sullivan chalks the "smear" against Mr. Mueller and his team to "Republican tribalism." It's the same reason that most Republicans stuck with Roy Moore in Alabama. But he also sees a potential lesson in the special election in Alabama. Perhaps, he writes, "the right's strategy of constantly upping the ante, of mainlining tribalism so that the completely indefensible becomes a badge of honor, has reached an apparent limit." Read more »
_____
"The texts say a lot, none of it good, about the F.B.I.'s culture and Bob Mueller's staffing choices. They say nothing about a grand plot by the Deep State."
Mr. Baker thinks the right is making too much of the phrase "insurance policy" from Mr. Strzok's texts to his mistress. When you place it in the full context of the text, he explains, it's clear that Mr. Strzok was merely "reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose." Hardly evidence of a "sinister Deep State code for black ops in the event of a Trump victory." Read more »
_____
Want the Partisan Writing Roundup in your inbox? Sign up for the Morning Briefing Newsletter or the What We're Reading Newsletter.
Have thoughts about this collection? Email feedback to ourpicks@nytimes.com.
Continue reading the main story
