With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for good reason, we cannot accept a post-hearing argument that evidence admitted without objection may not be considered because it was hearsay. In this case, not only did the General Counsel not object to Mullican Lumber’s evidence, he facilitated the admission of some of the evidence that he now argues cannot be considered because it was hearsay. “[W]hen evidence of that character [hearsay] is admitted without objection, it is to be considered and given its natural probative effect as if it were in law admissible.” Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 450, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912). Consistent with Diaz, we have given employee reports regarding union loss of majority status their natural probative value, despite their hearsay nature. See Transpersonnel, 349 F.3d at 187-88 (<HOLDING>). In Transper-sonnel, we said: We conclude,

A: recognizing high probative value of evidence providing conduct that was part of the very act charged
B: recognizing the probative value of objective and reliable hearsay evidence
C: holding probative value of evidence must be balanced against any prejudicial effect
D: recognizing substantial probative value of tape recording that provided direct evidence of knowledge element of crime charged
B.