Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
effectively vindicate the alleged harm. On this point, the government argues that the true harm from disqualification is grounded in separation of powers. It points out that Congress has mandated that the United States Attorney for each district represent the government in all cases occurring within that district. See 28 U-S-C. § 547. Further, although not noted by the government, the Constitution grants the Executive the power to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” U.S. Const, art. II, § 3. Although caselaw is admittedly vague on the exact scope of this power, it is clear that this constitutional provision vests the Executive with substantial discretion in choosing when and how to prosecute cases. See, e.g., United States v. Andersen, 940 F.2d 593, 596 (10th Cir.1991) ; United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that prosecutors are vested with wide discretion in determining how and when to file criminal charges
B. holding the tca vests court with authority to grant mandamus relief
C. holding the constitution vests the federal government with exclusive authority over relations with indian tribes
D. recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution
E. holding that the constitution vests prosecutors with significant discretion in choosing when and how to prosecute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.