With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". If any traditional investigative techniques were not tried, “the government must explain why with particularity.” Ramirez-Encamacion, 291 F.3d at 1222. We must consider “all the facts and circumstances in order to determine whether the government’s showing of necessity is sufficient to justify a wiretap,” id. (internal quotation omitted), keeping in mind the purpose of the necessity requirement “to insure that wiretapping is not used in situations where traditional investigative techniques would suffice to expose the crime.” United States v. Castillo-Garcia, 117 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir.1997) (internal quotation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Ramirez-Encamacion, 291 F.3d at 1222 n. 1; see United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 515, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Here, Wilson argues that the wiretaps were

A: holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent
B: holding specific intent to harm may be inferred from the circumstances and that finding is a matter for the jury
C: recognizing congresss clear intent in imposing the necessity requirement was to make doubly sure that the statutory authority for employing wire taps be used with restraint and only where the circumstances warrant
D: recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear
C.