Mr Green if if if Justice Barrett is wrong then what work is C2 doing I mean it seems like you've just now rearticulated only the theory of C1 and you're saying that you have to make it into C1 in order to be um you know to have this statute apply so can can you help me at least understand under your theory what additional thing does C2 offer let's let's look at the verbs of C1 um which are alter destroy U mutilate and conceal and let's think about their antonyms so one instead of destroy would be actually to create so one could use some sophisticated computer program we've heard an awful lot about Ai and we've heard about the possibility of deep fake photographs so I think you would violate C2 if you created a photograph that established your Alibi in in some extremely sophisticated way that would get it admitted in evidence or make it or you submit it for evidence would probably be where the crime occurred so you're saying there are other things other than particularly altering destroying mutilating or concealing but it has to be limited to a record not necessarily because I mean one other example if I might your honor would be not to conceal but to disclose so if I disclosed a witness list in a large multi-defendant drug trial my purpose in doing that though I haven't altered the document doent would be to intimidate the witnesses or prevent their attendance that on our submission would also violate all right can I just ask you one other question just so that I can fully understand your theory you keep using the term evidence and that does not appear in the statute the statute C1 says record document or other object now I appreciate that you know evidence can be such a thing but you can imagine a world in which those two are different so where does evidence come in in your Theory and why is it there well the the the title of the statute refers to tampering of witnesses victims and informants but along with victim excuse me Witnesses victims and informants comes evidence that they provide whether in the form of testimony or whether in the form of docum no I understand but the statute the provision we're talking about here does not use the term evidence and so and instead or in addition it uses the term official proceeding which is elsewhere defined not in terms of you know Court proceedings or investigations it's just a proceeding you know before Congress so is it your pro is it your argument that the only thing that this provision covers is something that is tantamount to evidence in an investigation or trial it is your honor and we're not limiting it our our position does not limit it to documents or records um I would submit C1 which we say carries into C2 through the otherwise Clause um when it says other object is pretty broad um um and it need not be as as um as 1512 F provides it needs it need not be admissible do F yeah f it need not be admissible so it it could cover things like electronic records it could cover Communications it could cover emails it could cover all kinds of things that we think get used by fact finders in a formally convened hearing I mean just to take you back to uh