By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Laanet

The style is formal and defensively analytical, using personal experience as a platform for presenting criticism of legal policy shortcomings. The speaker balances the emphasis on their innocence with logical arguments against the ambiguity of the law and the actions of the prosecutor's office, directly addressing colleagues. The tone is critical towards state bodies that prosecute people "into poverty or death."

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on the detailed presentation of draft amendments and committee decisions. Logical and technical language is employed, avoiding emotional appeals, which is typical for the rapporteur of the leading committee. The presentation is clear and structured, strictly adhering to the numbering and justifications of the legislative amendments.

The style is predominantly formal, procedural, and detailed, especially in Kalle Laanet’s presentation, which focuses on a protocol-based overview and the clarification of facts. The argumentation is strongly logical and based on practical needs (e.g., the expiration of contracts, the fulfillment of obligations). Anti Poolamets, in contrast, uses more emotional and aggressive language, calling e-residency a "black hole."

The presentation itself is formal and procedural, focusing on the summary and decisions reached during the Constitutional Committee's session. The political debate employs both logical arguments (efficiency, comparison of toolkits) and sharper criticism, such as Lauri Laats' accusation that the Prime Minister offered "incomplete answers or outright obfuscation." Kalle Laanet used an idiom to express his opposition, stating that "it would not be practical to cross swords" with law enforcement agencies.

The rhetorical style is formal and persuasive, emphasizing the urgency created by the total shift in the security environment. It employs historical references (the sea as a unifier/divider) and emotional appeals (a reference to General Kert) to justify the policy. The tone is optimistic regarding future progress, yet simultaneously serious when assessing risks.

The style is formal, neutral, and procedural, characteristic of a committee rapporteur. The address is logically structured, accurately referencing the committee's discussion, the arguments of various parties, and the voting results. Emotional appeals were not employed; the focus remained on facts and the course of the proceedings.

The style is formal, procedural, and detailed, focusing on accurately reporting the proceedings of the Constitutional Committee and responding to questions. The tone is analytical and cautious, repeatedly stressing that answers must be strictly confined within the scope of the committee's discussion, consistent with the role of the rapporteur. The rhetoric relies on logic and procedural arguments, avoiding emotional appeals, but includes veiled references to the opposition's motives.

The style is formal and professional, addressing high-ranking officials directly (the President of the Bank of Estonia). The tone is rather urgent, emphasizing the necessity of finding a solution to the actively debated problem of national defense financing. The discourse is issue-driven, seeking solutions and assessing society's readiness.

The style is formal, analytical, and supportive, while simultaneously expressing a moderate urgency regarding the implementation of reforms, stressing that "this moment must not be missed." Logical arguments are employed, and authorities (the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Anatoly Zimichev) are referenced to underscore the importance of legislative clarity and cooperation. The text concludes by offering encouragement and wishing strength for the continuation of the reforms.

Formal and procedural, especially when presenting the commission's report, precisely listing the participants and the decisions. In a personal standpoint, the tone becomes more moderate and logical, emphasizing that the banks' unsubstantiated decisions are "flawed" and that it would be proper to explain those decisions.