Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Hart memorandum to Ross, which states that the RWQCB's John Lewis had discussed the lead detected in the soil with McLaren Hart, and directed that it submit a proposed course of action to Ross. (PL’s Carson Issues, ¶ 65; Casparian 3rd DecL, Ex. 14 (August 1994 Memo Proposing Remedial Action)). Defendants object that the document is not properly authenticated. For the reasons set forth in note 160, infra, defendants’ objection is sustained. 142 . Salisbury Depo. at 75:12-80:8, Ex. 232 (May 1, 1995 Memo). While Salisbury testified to out of court statements made by Ross, the Ninth Circuit held that the testimony fell "within the ‘basic rule of evidence ... that prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness.’ ” Carson Harbor, supra, 270 F.3d at 873 . The Ninth Circuit also held that Dr. Amini's
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a cigarette advertisement of tar content was deceptive despite a truthful fineprint explanation in corner of advertisement of how tar was measured
B. holding that salisburys memo could be used to impeach ross assertion that he did not require plaintiff to remove the tar and slag materials
C. holding that government could not impeach witness with prior statement because he refused to answer any questions and thus gave no testimony in court with which the prior statement could be judged to be inconsistent
D. holding that summary convictions of crimes involving dishonesty could be used to impeach the credibility of a witness
E. holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statement to an officer could be used to impeach her
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.