dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Theory: RBG on stimulants during Supreme Court arguments to mask the extent of her condition? 1/3

I don't know if someone already did this, but I listened carefully to all the times RBG spoke during the 'Flowers v. Mississippi' oral argument that Q pointed us to in #3195.

First, note that you cannot rely on the transcript provided, as, very often, it is not accurate at all. In particular, several mentions of '[INDISCERNIBLE]' are actually perfectly understandable if you listen to the audio. My guess is that this was a transcript done live by some typist.

However, if you listen carefully to the 8 times she speaks during the video, you realize that at the beginning, but more strikingly at the end, she can have a lot of trouble with speech. When that happens, she pauses constantly and messes up her words.

Below is what I think to be an accurate transcript of how she spoke during that video (feel free to correct me if you think I made mistakes). And after that, I provide my theory.

Summary of her arguments:

She speaks 8 times.

She has some trouble at the beginning with her first two arguments.

Then she picks up the pace, and actually speaks normally from her 3rd to her 6th argument. Her 6th argument is flawless, and she speaks at regular speed.

She doesn't speak for a while after that.

Towards the end, she begins her 7th argument.

She really struggles with that one.

But 10 seconds after that one, out of nowhere, she has a sudden spike of intelligibility for her (short two-sentence long) 8th argument, and manages to complete it with just only one weird pause.

Note of caution about the official transcript:

There are several '[INDISCERNIBLE]' in the transcript, but the only real '[INDISCERNIBLE]' is the last one.

On the other hand, the transcript doesn't give you a true sense of what happened when she spoke.

Theory: RBG on stimulants during Supreme Court arguments to mask the extent of her condition? 2/3

The arguments of RBG:

1st RBG argument (she struggles a bit saying that one):

[08:06-08:18]

"Wasn't there a question asked [pause] of the entire [pause] a-array [pause] of whether they had [pause] any debts [pause] to the [pause] err, to the store ?"

(contrast with the official transcript: WHEN DID THE QUESTIONER ASKED[sic] THE ENTIRE ARRAY OF WHETHER THEY HAD ANY DEBT TO THE STORE? - as I mentioned, the transcript cannot be relied upon)

2nd RBG argument (still has a bit of trouble saying that one):

[14:00-14:17]

"Isn't that relationship of a bank teller [slight pause] to someone who comes to make a deposit [slight pause] different from someone who is a coworker, [breathes heavily] and it would encounters[sic], someone in the work suh-setting on a daily basis?"

3rd RBG argument (fine):

[19:58-20:06]

"The court said, it took account of the history, so, what are we to make of that?"

4th RBG argument (mostly fine):

[21:30-21:54]

Miss Johnson, the strongest case, is, is a juror - potential juror right. One of your complaints is that there were many more questions asked of African American potential jurors, but that wasn't so in Wright's case, that she was asked I think only three questions. Is it? - Miss Johnson: that's correct. - RBG: Yes"

(note that the transcript says [INDISCERNIBLE] here because they were talking at the same time, but she actually spoke fine this time)

5th RBG argument (mostly fine):

[24:28-24:43]

"Is that when you said "such relationships", were they relationships because of working at the same place, or living in the same neighborhood, in the case of the, white jurors?"

6th RBG argument (perfect diction, normal pace):

[29:00-29:36]

"You have a very strange, position on, on uh, potential jurors who lied because, there was the case of "[some first name] Huggins", who said he had no knowledge of the Flowers case when in fact, on a 2007 "[phonetic wah-deer]" panel. And you said, oh that doesn't matter, that, that he lied, because he didn't [emphasis]admit to lie. I think, that if someone lied and didn't admit to it, that would be a count [emphasis]against that person, rather than in that person's favor."

(note that the transcript says [INDISCERNIBLE] where I wrote "wah-deer", but that may just be a real actual name)

[No argument for 20 minutes]

7th RBG argument (she really struggles with that one):

[49:28-49:48]

"But there well[mispronounces 'were'] no questions [pause] of [pause] why[mispronounces 'white', and strange voice tone] [pause] erm [pause] jurors [pause] who said [pause] they had a relationship[pause] with defense [pause] witnesses. There were no follow[voice fluke]-up questions for them, they just said, yes, they knew, defense [odd pause] witnesses[messes that word, and voice oddly fades away]."

(official transcript: THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OF WHITE JURORS WHO SAID THEY HAD RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENSE WITNESSES. [INDISCERNIBLE] - kek, I guess the typist just gave up there)

8th and last RBG argument (actually 10 seconds later, sudden spike of normal diction, with only one little quip at the end):

[50:00-50:13]

"We didn't - we don't know what the relationship of the others were because they weren't asked. They said they had a relationship, with defense witnesses, but they weren't [odd pause] asked what is the relationship."

Anonymous ID: f32f82 March 26, 2019, 11:14 p.m. No.5917895 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>7911 >>8159

Theory: RBG on stimulants during Supreme Court arguments to mask the extent of her condition? 3/3

Theory, or just a silly over-interpretation?

A mean spirited person could jokingly put forward that someone panicked and put some adderal in her IV between her last two arguments.

But after thinking about it, I wondered if there could be a there there.

Maybe some adderal or similar stimulant was provided ahead of the ordeal. It took the first 20 minutes to fully come in effect, and it then peaked for 10 minutes of normal diction, culminating in her flawless 6th argument.

However not enough adderal was provided. After a 20 minutes siesta, slurred speech was back, and an emergency top up was needed at once! More seriously, there of course was not enough time in the 10 seconds that separate her last 2 arguments for a substance to be taken and become effective. An explanation that would fit the pattern better could be that, distraught by the way she struggled to utter her previous last sentences, she just gathered all she had in her to say a couple last ones that would sound normal. A jolt of adrenaline for fear of being discovered?

In any case, at that point, she clearly is not as sharp as she was merely 20 minutes earlier.

To be clear, I do not take lightly of anyone being ill. But one can still joke around or theorize, more so given all the sick stuff they keep doing to the rest of us, can't one?

To the specialists, who may object that adderal doesn't become effective and then vanish that quickly, I have heard of other psycho stimulants that could match that timing more closely. I won't give any names, as I don't want to be responsible for people seeking out those substances. And I do not partake either. I merely use adderal to illustrate the theory, as everyone has heard about it.

TL;DR

RBG is out of it because of her medical condition, but careful timing of stimulants usage around her public appearances prevents people from realizing how bad it actually is?

In any case, just a theory.

Plot twist:

As I was about to post this here, I saw that Neon wrote an article where he says he's pretty sure some of the audio of RBG was edited.

That could provide an alternative explanation to the above.

I suspect she was actually present at the hearing, because she is addressed directly by name several times in the video.

However, in light of neon's article, maybe her speech was so bad at times, that her arguments were rerecorded post-facto until they sounded good enough to be edited into the video that ended up uploaded on cspan?

Just another theory.