Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in excuse. See Robinsion at 242-43. 4 . A closely related affirmative defense is the defense of entrapment by estoppel, an affirmative defense also grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Entrapment by estoppel provides an affirmative defense for action taken in reasonable reliance on assurances by government officials that the conduct is legal. See United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (7th Cir.1994). We have questioned the meaningfulness of the difference between the two defenses. See United States v. Baker, 438 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir.2006). To the extent the distinction is meaningful, the main difference is that, in the case of the public authority defense, the defendant engages in conduct at the request of a government official t 257, 3 L.Ed.2d 1344 (1959) ; Howell, 37 F.3d at 1204 (stating that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination
B. holding the protective order forbidding the deposition of the chairman of the judicial inquiry commission on the grounds of blanket privilege was improper
C. holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific
D. holding that the drug tax violated the privilege against selfincrimination
E. holding that it would offend due process to permit criminal prosecution of an individual for invoking a privilege against selfincrimination in hearings before a state legislative commission after having been assured of his right to do so by the chairman members and counsel of the commission
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.