Given a document, an entity and its sentiment towards the entity, verify if it is the correct sentiment towards the entity. Answer should be yes or no. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Q: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Davis is Neutral . Davis challenged his conviction and sentence on the grounds that his confession was illegally obtained and that his trial in San Clara County  Calif.  was tainted by pretrial publicity.
 Marc Klaas  Polly's father  expressed frustration Monday that Davis' appeals were taking too long. He noted that Polly would be 28 now had she lived.
Davis' appeals were taking too long. He noted that Polly would be 28 now had she lived.
 "I have no doubt that this guy is going to outlive me " said Klaas  60.
 Davis has a constitutional challenge pending before the state high court. Once that is resolved  he can challenge his conviction and sentence in federal court.
 Assistant California Attorney General Ronald Matthias  who successfully opposed DavisDavis' appeal  said federal appeals could take 10 to 15 years.
 In writing for the court  Justice Joyce L. Kennard recounted DavisDavis' reaction when a jury found him guilty of Polly's murder.
 Davis "turned toward the television cameras in the courtroom and made an obscene gesture with both hands by extending his middle fingers " Kennard wrote. "He then winked his eye and blew a kiss."
 Davis kidnapped Polly from her bedroom at her home in Petaluma  Calif.  where she was having a slumber party with two other girls. Her mother and a younger half-sister were sleeping down the hall.
 Davis had a long and violent criminal record  and his history helped fuel voter support for a 1994 three-strikes initiative in California that required sentences of 25 years to life in prison for a third felony after two violent felonies.

A: yes
****
Q: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Steve Bannon is Neutral . The attempts to curtail testimony to congressional investigators became clear this week when  former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon  appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and infuriated both sides of the aisle by refusing to answer questions about  his  work during the presidential transition and in the White House.
At some points during  Bannon 's six hours of closed-door testimony   his  attorney took breaks to confer via telephone with the White House counsel's office to clarify what questions could be answered and came back with the same guidance:  Bannon  could not discuss any activities related to the transition or  his  tenure in the White House.
 Bannon 's team negotiated ground rules with the White House counsel's office the week prior to his appearance before the House Intelligence Committee  according to a source familiar with the situation.
The President's personal legal team was aware of discussions between the White House counsel's office and  Bannon 's lawyer about protecting a possible privilege claim. But it wasn't their decision  according to a person familiar with the discussions. The protection of the privilege is a matter for the White House  not the President's legal team  because it relates to the office.
Before the hearing   Bannon 's lawyer informed a staff member of Rep. Devin Nunes  the California Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee  that  Bannon  planned to claim executive privilege on topics beyond the presidential campaign  a source said.
But that information was apparently tightly held. "It caught me personally by surprise" that  Bannon  asserted executive privilege  said Rep. Mike Conaway  the Texas Republican leading the committee's Russia investigation.
South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy and Florida Rep. Tom Rooney  the other two Republicans leading the Russia probe along with Conaway  also said they weren't aware of any agreement between the White House and committee staff about the scope of  Bannon 's testimony.
"They wouldn't do that because I'd ask what I think is relevant to ask  and if you've got a legal privilege you can assert it " Gowdy said  adding that  Bannon  was in a "legally indefensible position."
As it became clear on Tuesday that  Bannon  was refusing to answer questions  the committee served  him  with a subpoena to compel  him  to divulge additional information.
But the scope of what  Bannon  was claiming was privileged shocked members from both parties.
" His  version of executive privilege is it covers the transition  the time  he  was at the White House and covers time forever " Gowdy told Fox News Wednesday. "That is no one's definition of executive privilege."
Lawmakers were also offended that  Bannon  had already divulged details about some of  his  post-campaign activities in Michael Wolff's explosive book "Fire and Fury " but then refused to discuss those events with the committee.  Bannon 's attorney also informed members that he would  in fact  answer those questions when he meets with special counsel Robert Mueller's team because executive privilege doesn't apply to Mueller's investigation.
Democrats charge that  Bannon 's appearance before the House committee marks the broadest attempt so far at using privilege to shield events that occurred from the moment Trump was elected.
Republicans haven't ruled out the possibility of holding  Bannon  in contempt  but at least one GOP member -- Gowdy -- suggested it was unlikely.
House Speaker Paul Ryan downplayed the issue of whether witnesses like  Bannon  might be abusing the bounds of executive privilege.
Still   Bannon 's stonewalling sparked a sharp warning from Conaway -- the Republican leading the House Russia probe -- to White House aides who might follow the Bannon model: "We're going to insist on getting questions we need to answer our report."

A: yes
****
Q: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Laura Moser is Negative . Laura Moser  a candidate in a Democratic congressional primary in Texas . (Michael Stravato for The Washington Post)
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is taking fire from the left after months of relative peace  thanks to a document put online the night of Feb. 22 â a collection of opposition research on  Laura Moser   a progressive candidate in Texasâs competitive 7th Congressional District.
As  Moser  was attending a campaign event  the DCCC posted a short but brutal collection of hits on  Moser  that would be likely used against  her  if  she  won the Democratic nomination. The 7th District is one of 23 where Hillary Clinton outpolled Donald Trump in 2016  while voters sent a Republican congressman to Washington.
âDemocratic voters need to hear that  Laura Moser  is not going to change Washington â the committee wrote. â She  is a Washington insider  who begrudgingly moved to Houston to run for Congress.â
 Moser  responded later Thursday night  saying in a statement that the DCCCâs tactics represented âwhy people hate politicsâ and hurt the effort to take Congress back from Republicans.
âWeâre used to tough talk here in Texas  but itâs disappointing to hear it from Washington operatives â  she  said.
 Moser  did relocate to  her  native Houston last year and began running for Congress  with  her  move back home â after launching Daily Action  a campaign tool for progressives frustrated by Trump â as part of the story. The DCCC  which has seen plenty of candidates brought down by residence issues  came to view  her  as unelectable.
âVoters in Houston have organized for over a year to hold [Republican Rep. John Abney] Culberson accountable and win this Clinton district â said DCCC communications director Meredith Kelly. âUnfortunately   Laura Moserâs  outright disgust for life in Texas disqualifies  her  as a general election candidate and would rob voters of their opportunity to flip Texasâs 7th in November.â
The DCCCâs memo hit  Moser  for paying Revolution Messaging  the firm where  her  husband  Arun Chaudhary  had worked since 2012  to produce  her  TV ads. But its main attack lines were backed up by an article  Moser  wrote for Washingtonian in 2014  where  she  joked that  she âd âsooner have my teeth pulled out without anesthesiaâ than move to  her  grandparentsâ home in Paris  Tex. Paris is a small city more than 300 miles from the 7th District; the DCCC warned that voters would not process the nuance.
Both  Moser âs campaign and the DCCC saw  her  in a strong position to win one of two runoff slots in the March 6 Democratic primary. With early voting underway  and Democratic turnout in Houstonâs Harris County undergoing a historic surge  the DCCC pounced.
But the way it did so  advertising what Republicans might use to beat  Moser   sparked outrage across the left. At Daily Kos  a popular group blog that crowdfunds for Democratic candidates  a diarist wondered whether the move against  Moser  âmay have something to do with the candidate selection role the Blue Dog Coalition is playing at the DCCC.â The People for Bernie Sanders  a progressive group organized to support the Vermont senatorâs 2016 presidential campaign  called âfor the DCCC board to investigate how the decision was reached and publish the findings publicly.â There was an additional factor: Revolution Messaging had worked for Sanders  and Chaudhary had worked as the campaignâs photographer.
 Moser  is not the only progressive candidate in the district primary  and several of  her  rivals back universal Medicare  which has become a litmus test on the left. But  her  race has attracted national attention as an example of progressive candidates bristling as well-established Democratic organizations backed their rivals. On Thursday morning  the Intercept  which has been publishing articles on how the DCCC works  highlighted  Moser âs race and the involvement of Emilyâs List with party donor Lizzie Pannill Fletcher.

A:
no
****