With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Appellant’s complaint against the President sought injunc-tive and declaratory relief, seemingly to compel the enforcement of various laws. Her complaint cited numerous statutes, including the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. But the remedy of mandamus is available only if: “(1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff.” Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quotations and citations omitted). Appellant has not shown a “clear and indisputable right” to mandamus relief. See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988); see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234-35

A: holding that an insurer has a duty to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances
B: holding that federal executive officials in general are not privileged with absolute immunity
C: holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion
D: holding the executive branch has absolute discretion to decide whether to conduct an investigation or prosecute a case
D.