Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with the “executive” privilege. Such importation is potentially misleading because the executive privilege is inspired, at least in part, by a policy consideration that plays little or no role in cases against police officers. At the root of the executive privilege is concern about preserving a constitutionally appropriate balance and separation of the largely disparate powers of the three great branches of the federal government. In the seminal cases about executive privilege the courts have been concerned primarily about finding an appropriate accommodation between the constitutionally independent status and needs of the presidency of the United States and the needs of our system of justice. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3107, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) . These high level, politically most sensitive
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing separation of powers doctrine
B. recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers
C. recognizing that standing doctrine is fundamentally rooted in respect for the separation of powers of the independent branches of government
D. holding that executive branch prosecution of disciplinary charges against a judge violated the separation of powers provision in the nevada constitution a provision identical to article v section 1 of the utah constitution
E. holding that the presidential privilege is inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.