Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a denial of due process.’ ” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (internal citations omitted). Vouching occurs when the prosecutor interjects his personal opinion about the credibility of a witness or the strength of the evidence as a whole. Rodriguez v. Scillia, 193 F.3d 913, 919 (7th Cir.1999); United States v. Alexander, 163 F.3d 426, 429 (7th Cir.1998). In such a situation, vouching introduces credibility evidence that would have been inadmissible during trial. However, a prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence adduced at trial, even going so far as to call a defendant a liar if the record supports that accusation. See United States v. Goodapple, 958 F.2d 1402, 1409-10 (7th Cir.1992); see also Morgan, 113 F.3d at 89 . Looking at the comment in isolation, two
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a prosecutor calling a witness an honest citizen was a fair inference from the record
B. holding that a reasonable inference need not be the sole possible inference
C. holding unconstitutional procedure in the puerto rico local courts where no prosecutor was appointed and the judge acted regularly in place of any prosecutor calling and examining all prosecution witnesses and crossexamining defense witnesses
D. holding that an adverse inference cannot be drawn from a defendants failure to call a witness if the states evidence establishes that the witness is an accomplice who would be entitled to assert a fifth amendment privilege
E. holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants timely motion for the substitution of the participating prosecutor in order to permit the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.