Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
involving the bribe, Muhammad maintains that the Government failed to prove that he acted with the specific intent to commit the offense and that it failed to demonstrate that he took a “substantial step” towards completing the crime. The federal bribery statute found at 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A) provides that a public official commits bribery when he “corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally ... in return for ... being influenced in the performance of any official act.” The language in the statute is disjunctive. In other words, a defendant violates § 201 by merely seeking or demanding a bribe, regardless of whether he accepts or even agrees to accept it. See, e.g., United States v. Gallo, 863 F.2d 185, 189 (2d Cir.1988)  (quoting United States v. Jacobs, 431 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding relevance of evidence is established by any showing however slight that the evidence makes it more or less likely that the defendant committed the crime in question
B. holding that  201b makes attempted bribery a crime and so long as a bribe is offered or promised with the requisite intent to influence any official act the crime is committed
C. holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins
D. holding that attempted sexual abuse is a specific intent crime
E. holding that the crime is complete when the payment is corruptly given with intent to influence the judicial officer on any matter that may by law come before him in his official capacity whether or not it ever does
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.