Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in them from a standpoint of predisposition. The extensive Planning Board transcripts show that the chairman refereed an exhaustive, highly contentious Planning Board process that extended over a period of sixteen months. Although he often had difficulty keeping control over a very outspoken group of town residents opposed to the project, he nevertheless moved the process forward while following the presentations, questioning witnesses, and fairly discussing the evidence. See 5 M.R.S. § 9062(3)(C) (2007) (stating that presiding officers have the authority to “[rjegulate the course of the hearing”); Gorham, 625 A.2d at 902-03, On this record, his actions cannot be said to be the result of bias. Cf. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) . Finally, while the chairman’s statements to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a party must bring a motion demonstrating prejudice or implied or actual bias if the party failed to remove the judge before trial
B. holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice
C. recognizing that expressions of impatience dissatisfaction annoyance and even anger by a judge do not constitute bias or prejudice
D. holding that a trial judge has discretion to exclude evidence of pending charges and that where the defendant was given a full opportunity outside the presence of the jury to develop a foundation for bias but failed to do so the trial judge did not abuse its discretion
E. recognizing that settlement discussions do not constitute an offer of judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.