Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
offers testimony “material to the crucial issue of intent” must be admitted. (See PL’s Opp’n at 42) (citing Wright v. United States Postal Serv., 183 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed.Cir.1999); Jones v. Dep’t of Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 398, 405-07 (1995); Burge v. Dep’t of Air Force, 82 M.S.P.R. 75, 92 (1999).) However, these cases are fact specific; they certainly do not stand for the proposition that all witnesses who may add some additional detail need be allowed to testify. On the contrary, just as district courts enjoy broad discretion to exclude evidence, the probative value of which is substantially outweighed by “considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence,” Fed.R.Evid. 403; see also United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1410 (D.C.Cir.1988) , the MSPB also enjoys substantial discretion
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony to only one witness where additional witnesses would have provided the same testimony
B. holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony
C. holding that the district court exceeded its discretion in excluding testimony proffered to discredit the key government witness
D. holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative
E. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.