With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". understanding that it had admitted the bankruptcy transcript. Rejecting a government request to perform a demonstrative reading of the transcript, the court ruled such a reading unnecessary because the jurors “can read it just like they read all the other exhibits.” 9/17/98 Tr. at 66. Finally, McCoy’s trial counsel made clear, as the court reporter’s transcript shows, that she understood that the bankruptcy transcript had been admitted. Opposing the government’s (renewed) attempt to have a tape of the bankruptcy testimony entered into evidence and played to the jury, McCoy’s counsel said: “We have got the transcript. That is already in the record .... [T]he tape adds nothing, and it is just cumulative_” 9/18/98 Tr. at 3. See United States v. Barrett, 111 F.3d 947, 951 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Because we conclude that the bankruptcy

A: holding that bare conclusions did not amount to any evidence at all and the fact that they were admitted without objection adds nothing to their probative force
B: holding exhibits deemed admitted into evidence where they were treated below without objection as if they were admitted
C: holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection
D: holding that juror access to several exhibits that had not been admitted into evidence was not prejudicial as they were cumulative of trial testimony
B.