With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Giacumbo, the letter, distributed to the members of Local 843, effectively endorsed Mr. Williams, Mr. Giacumbo’s opponent. As for surrounding circumstances, Defendant claims that Mr. Potter drafted the letter in response to the “New Teamsters’ ” newsletter, which contained serious allegations connecting Mr. Potter to organized crime. Even if Mr. Potter’s motive of responding to the “New Teamsters’ ” allegations were reasonable, it cannot justify the scope of the attack and criticism against Mr. Giaeumbo. As noted in the discussion of whether the Potter letter falls within § 401(g)’s safe harbor, supra, the letter went far beyond factually refuting the allegations of the “New Teamsters”. Instead, Mr. Potter’s letter co rkers Intern. of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 547 F.2d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>), Donovan v. National Alliance of Postal and

A: holding that parole boards do not have to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment
B: holding that complaints regarding violation of employer policies unrelated to impermissible discrimination do not fall within the scope of title vii and therefore do not qualify for protection under the statute
C: holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
D: holding that best of motives do not excuse  401g violation
D.