With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court’s evidentiary ruling: because “Congress showed ‘careful draftsmanship’ by including an intent requirement in the second paragraph, but not the first paragraph, of § 2113(a), we hold that the first paragraph of § 2113(a) des Hayes, 227 F.3d 578, 586 (6th Cir.2000); United States v. Andrews, 48 Fed.Appx. 151, 154-55 (6th Cir. 2002) (requiring the government to prove in a § 115 prosecution that “(1) the defendant conveyed a threat of physical harm to a federal official or his family; (2) the threat was intended as an act of retaliation against the federal official; and (3) this threat could reasonably be construed by the person in receipt of the threat to be actually carried out” (emphasis added)); United States v. Williams, No. 98-2010, 2000 WL 32006 at *2 (6th Cir. Jan.3, 2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Kamen, Nos. 98-5170/5171,

A: holding that the only intent necessary to convict a defendant under 18 usc  1513b for retaliating against a witness victim or informant was an intent to retaliate internal quotation marks omitted
B: recognizing that to be in violation of 18 usc  115a1b the defendant must act with the intent to retaliate against a government employee on account of the performance of his or her official duties 
C: holding that the second part of 18 usc  115a1b requires that a threat be made with the intent to retaliate against the judge after the judge has acted
D: holding that the official charged with responsibility to act must be an official within the doj with the authority to act in the circumstances
B.