By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The speaker employs a highly formal, procedural, and analytical style, concentrating on facts and rules of procedure. The tone is measured and defensive, particularly when responding to questions regarding legal non-compliance, repeatedly stressing that the ultimate authority for decision-making rests with the court, not with politicians. The speech utilizes extensive legal terminology and references to committee deliberations.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet it incorporates sharp and challenging rhetorical questions regarding the opponent's confidence in security institutions. When addressing the Minister, the speaker employs sarcasm and indirect criticism concerning his ability to handle multiple issues, including the economy. The emphasis lies on logical and procedural argumentation, which calls into question the necessity of the proposed new laws.

The style is formal, analytical, and procedure-driven, characteristic of a commission rapporteur explaining a complex procedural process. The speaker employs logical appeals, detailing the positions of the agencies and the frequency of the commission's deliberations (four times), in order to justify the decisions reached. Emotional or personal appeals are absent; the emphasis rests on the intent of the law and procedural rulings.

The style is predominantly formal, analytical, and explanatory, especially when detailing the history of legislative procedure and technical specifics. On the subject of party financing, the tone shifts to become slightly defensive and persuasive, directly countering the claims of the opposition and emphasizing shared democratic interests. Logical arguments and procedural referencing are employed.

The style is formal and direct, beginning with a polite greeting to the Prime Minister ("strength to your work"). The speaker adopts a critical yet businesslike tone, focusing on logical questions regarding the government's work organization and procedural shortcomings (the absence of calculations).