Russian probe arguments

The Russian probe videos were very interesting to view each arguments and see there side to it. In the  Tomi  Lauren Russian probe video, she seemed very agiatated with in the political stand point of it. She didn't use any statistics in her argument, therefore she used mainly pathos and ethos since no logos was used. She shows great authority and confidence within her arguments. She states how we are basically loosing money and time within the Russian probe. Tomi uses pathos due to all of the emotion she has about this topic, you can almost see the fumes rising. She had a well thought out argument but to me it was too much of an attack and comparing her statement with all Americans, stereotypical if I might add.
  Sara Sanders arguments had some good key point she used Logos and Ethos. In my opinion I did not see or get emotion from her argument, more of logic and authority. She used statistics based off of what happened, yet she was not all forth coming about trump and what his next move is. She would typically change the subject or disregard what the opponent was asking. She had total confidence in her self, making it easier for the readers or watchers to side with her and listen because they assume she is right due to her confidence.
  "NYT: How FBI's Russia probe began" uses Logos and Ethos. They start with using the proof that was given to them whether they add a spin to it or not this makes it more acceptable to believe their side of the story. They stated how Russia has political dirt on Clinton, and it so happened to come up while the Australian diplomat was converting with George Papadopoulos in may of last year. New anchors making these claims causes the argument to look more and more believable. This is how majority of the News makes arguments, they make sure to be truthful and knowledgeable to prove their side.
  Finally the last video I watch was "Russia probe beings with Papadopoulos". After watching this video it reminds me a lot of the one I talked about previously. It states the same about George and the Australian diplomat had a conversation at the bar and happened in may of 2016. Yet this video states that their were emails leaked from Clinton and that is the reason the Australian diplomat came forward, therefore causing a spin into the problem. This video uses Logos and ethos, the argument has all of it key points and has all the statistics needed for an argument. They argue by having knowledge and majority of people will not want someone who seems to bluff otherwise they shall not side with the argument. There will always be a spin in a news article or propaganda, although you just have to make sure all the facts are there.