With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.2d 1082 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973)). Here, where one witness testified at length about the process of creating the tapes and identified the originals, and where another witness confirmed the accuracy of the portions of the tapes with which he was familiar, the Government met its burden. See United States v. Strothers, 77 F.3d 1389, 1392 (D.C.Cir.) (“Tapes may be authenticated ‘by testimony describing the process or system that created the tape’ or ‘by testimony from parties to the conversation affirming that the tapefs] contained an accurate record of what was said.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Dale, 991 F.2d 819, 843 (D.C.Cir.1993)), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 117 S.Ct. 374, 136 L.Ed.2d 263 (1996); cf. Sandoval, 709 F.2d at 1555 (<HOLDING>). Nor did the court abuse its discretion by

A: holding where tape corroborated by independent testimony of two police officers and where defendant did not challenge accuracy of recording court did not err in admitting tape despite prosecutions failure to authenticate it
B: holding that trial court did not err
C: holding officers identification of defendants voice on tape recording of phone call setting up controlled buy sufficient to corroborate informants testimony regarding subsequent buy
D: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a transcript of a recording even though defense counsel did not stipulate to its accuracy
A.