barrett critiques the majoritys reliance on interpretive canons, asserting that they are ill-suited to the statutes structure. applying either [canon] to (c)(2) is like using a hammer to pound in a screwit looks like it might work, but using it botches the job. id. at 9. she also addresses broader implications, cautioning that the majoritys decision narrows prosecutorial tools for addressing significant threats to democracy. > section 1512(c)(2) reflects congresss desire to avoid future surprises: it is a catchall for matters not specifically contemplatedknown unknowns. id., quoting republic of iraq v. beaty, 556 u.s. 848, 860 (2009). *-*
United States