Russia Probes Scandal

People utilize on a variety of argumentative techniques in order to gain support on their views. That being said, some rely more heavily on facts (logos) or credibility (ethos) while others depend on the emotions of the audience (pathos). When it comes to political arguments, emotions can easily take over a debate, leading to quarrels rather than productive conversation. The four clips discussing the Russian Probe controversy highlight different methods of argumentation and their effects on the audience.

Sarah Sanders Argument

Sarah Sanders takes an open stance with the Republicans when making her argument to the reporter. She primarily uses logos, however, there is clearly spin used in many of her statements. "Everything that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were falsely accusing this president of doing over the past year they were actually doing themselves," she tells the reporter; while this may be factual, the wording and delivery of the statement antagonizes the Clinton campaign and implies that the DNC did nothing wrong in this situation. Sanders heavily takes an either/or viewpoint in her argument, saying that Trump was "right all along" while Democrats were "wrong all along." Sanders seems to avoid using pathos in order to project a more professional and reliable image, therefore strengthening her ethos at the same time. Her position as political advisor alongside the apparent lack of emotional outrage makes her statements more trustworthy versus arguments such as Tomi Lahren's.

Tomi Lahren Argument        

In contrast to the Sarah Sanders clip, Tomi Lahren is very opinionated and uses pathos very heavily in her segment. Her argument is much more informal, using emotionally charged terms such as corrupt, "so ridiculous", and crooks to develop her views. She emphasizes the fact that millions of our tax dollars are being put towards this Russian probe. While this serves as logos as well, it is primarily used as ethos in order to make the audience equally angry with the current circumstances.

She refers to Americans as "hardworking" to acknowledge the efforts that the average citizen faces, giving her more likeability. Due to her informal delivery, her argument is lacking in ethos, as she doesn't present herself as a credible source of information. 






Mark Mazzetti Argument 

Similar to the first clip, Mark Mazzetti focuses on logos to make his argument. His Republican/Democrat stance is not as apparent, however, as his statements are less skewed. He states, in a concise manner, that the Russia probe began primarily due to George Papadopoulos' drunken banter rather than the dossier. Mazzetti gets his point across without the use of ethos of pathos, but the lack of development towards his argument helps in this case. If he had been too emotional during his statement (ex. name-calling the group giving out misleading information), it may have come across as if he were trying to hide information from the public rather than trying to clear up a miscommunication.

Matt Apuzzo Argument 

Matt Apuzzo, unlike some of the others, seems to side less with Trump in this debate. He refers to Papadopoulos as "little" and "inexperienced" which alludes to his side of the argument. That being said, he goes on to use logos, stating directly what information he learned from leaked emails regarding Russian relations with the Trump campaign. He also uses ethos by quoting a "veteran counter-intelligence person" who would likely have more credibility than a journalist such as himself.