Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have expressly concluded that Mr. Kohlmann is qualified to provide expert testimony on terrorism similar to that which he intends to provide in this case. United States v. Sabir, 2007 WL 1373184, at *1; United States v. Paracha, 2006 WL 12768, at * 18. In Paracha, Judge Sidney Stein found that Mr. Kohl-mann “possesses sufficient education, training and experience to qualify as an expert on the origins, leadership and tradecraft of the al Qaeda organization.” 2006 WL 12768, at *20. And in Sabir, Judge Loretta Preska found that Mr. Kohlmann was qualified to offer testimony on the origins and history of al Qaeda as well as Azzam Publications. See 2007 WL 1373184, at *8-9; see also Aref, 2007 WL 603508, at *16 . The Court agrees with Judges Stein and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive
B. holding that mr kohlmann could provide expert testimony on political groups in bangladesh
C. holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial
D. holding that a request for funds for expert testimony must show inter alia that the testimony is crucial and is subject to varying expert opinions
E. holding expert testimony remedies speculation by the court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.