With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Because the testimony at issue was not hearsay under Rule 801(c), we need not consider whether it qualified as a Rule 801(d)(2)(A) exception to the hearsay rule. Simmons’ prior testimony was not introduced for the truth of what Simmons asserted. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c) (“‘Hearsay’ is a statement ... offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”). Out-of-court statements are not hearsay when “the point of the prosecutor’s introducing those statements was simply to prove that the statements were made so as to establish a foundation for later showing, through other admissible evidence, that they were false”. Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 219-20, 94 S.Ct. 2258, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 (1974) (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Meyer, 733 F.2d 362, 363 (5th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). The Government proffered Simmons’ prior

A: holding defendants false exculpatory statements admissible to show consciousness of guilt
B: holding that evidence of threats or intimidation of a witness is admissible under rule 404b to show consciousness of guilt
C: recognizing while presence is not enough consciousness of guilt may be inferred based on a defendants behavior
D: holding criminal acts designed to reduce the likelihood of conviction including threats against witnesses are admissible under rule 404b as showing consciousness of guilt
A.