~Russian Probe~

Sarah Sanders :                   

 Sarah Sanders does not use logos in her argument to the reporters, she uses phrases like, "I believe" and "I think" which are then followed by the word evidence. Sanders gives her statements a twist to make the audience believe that they are facts, for example when Bill asks if this information is from news reports or channels from the White House she states that she thinks its just "fact". Bill then questions her again to confirm that she has not spoken to the Department of Justice about the Russian probe being closed. Although Sanders tries to avoid using pathos to keep her image professional, and trustworthy(ethos) she blames everything on the Clintons and DNC. Later on the when Bill brings up the 401k, she states that President Trump only wants to protect his people, mainly focusing on the middle class. Sanders does not necessarily have to have an out break of emotions to use them. Just by siding with the Republicans and making sure that any other audience knows that the president is doing the best he can to protect his people  to not only appealing to the Republicans but also to any other the audience's emotion.

                                                                                          Tomi Lahren :

Lahren's argument is high in opinions; the choice of vocabulary and tone shows that there is plenty of emotions involved, pathos. Tomi states that she speaks for both sides of the political dive, which may focus all audiences attention to what she is saying and may cause them to match her strong emotions about the Russian probe. Another main topic she used to appeal to the audiences emotion is when, she talks about how "hard working" American's tax money is going to waste, because of this investigation on corrupt politicians. However that statement also goes under logos, which is one of the only times her emotions are absent. Tomi does not go against president Trump at any given time keeping her image some what presentable, but does blame Clinton for the scam. The way Tomi presented this argument did not make her look professional like Sanders did in her argument.

                  Mark Mazzetti  :

Mark avoids using pathos in any of his statements, making it difficulty to know his political stance. In this case Mazzetti not being emotionally involved helped the facts, logos, flow through out his argument. For example, when he eloquently states that the Russian probe investigation began because of George. This emphasized, ethos, how trustworthy, and creditable Mark can be in an important political  argument.

           Matt Apuzzo :

Apuzzo gets straight to the point, about Papadopoulos being the reason why the Russian probe investigation began, just like Mazzetti. Using facts and information from what was leaked on the emails, and what Australians went to the FBI with. Apuzzo is applying the logos to every statement in this argument. Matt makes sure to state the people he has received information from about the emails and foreign surrogates on campaign strategies. Matt giving credit to others about information and details about Papadopoulos and the emails, composes a trustworthy, creditability and a professional image to the public, ethos. Apuzzo leaves pathos out of this argument.