Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
omnibus clause did not contain such an express limitation; it merely adopted the “corruptly, by threats or force” formula of §§ 1503 and 1505. In any event, however, the omnibus clause of § 1512 was not enacted. After the Senate had passed its version, the House debated that bill together with its own victim protection bill. A section-by-section analysis of the House bill indicates that the House Judiciary Committee was also aware that some courts were interpreting § 1503 narrowly. 128 Cong.Rec. 26,350 (1982). The analysis cites Metcalf, 435 F.2d 754 (applying the ejusdem generis rule and stating that “the manner in which the statute may be violated would ordinarily seem to be limited to intimidating actions,” id. at 757), and United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214 (6th Cir.1969) . Nonetheless, neither the bill that passed the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  1503 is not violated merely by making a false statement id at 21718
B. holding that materiality does not require a showing that the creditors were prejudiced by the false statement
C. holding that an attorney who made false representations to a court did not violate okla rpc 33 because that rule addresses professional misconduct as an advocate for making false statements to a tribunal not false statements by a lawyer as a witness
D. holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement
E. holding that materiality is not an element of  1542 because any false statement is sufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.