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].

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Ryan Zinke is Negative . Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke  spent more than $14 000 on government helicopter rides for  himself   and staff  to travel to and from Washington D.C. events over the summer â including one time so  he  could ride horses with Vice President Mike Pence  a new investigation unveiled.
Through a Freedom of Information Act request   Zinke 's travel logs revealed  he  had used "taxpayer-funded vehicles from the U.S. Park Police to help accommodate  his  political events schedule " the Politico investigation reported.
On June 21   Zinke  ordered a Park Police helicopter for  him  and  his  chief of staff  Scott Hommel  in order to attend and emergency management exercise in Shepherdstown  West Virginia  Politico reported. The flight cost $8 000 and was justified by the Interior Department because it said  Zinke  wouldn't have been able to make the event in time otherwise.
"Secretary Zinkeâs last engagement in Washington D.C. is at 2 p.m. " and Interior staffer explained as a defense for  Zinke 's helicopter use. "Driving to [the West Virginia event] would not enable him to be on time and fully participate as scheduled."
Zinke's prior engagement was a ceremony for Rep. Greg Gianforte  R-Mont.  who filled  Zinke 's former seat with a special election victory in May. Gianforte and his wife also donated $15 800 to  Zinke 's previous congressional campaigns  Politico reported.
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Schaffer Wice is Neutral . The media-savvy special prosecutors have colluded with the Fourth Estate to try — and convict — Paxton in the court of public opinion long before the case even comes to trial.  Wice  in particular is an aspiring media celebrity  serving as a TV “legal analyst” on Houston’s Channel 2 (KPRC) since 2003. Think of a male version of Nancy Grace or Greta Van Susteren — a Dan Abrams wannabe. One profile described the bombastic  Wice  as a “media magnet” who “never shies away from the spotlight.” The KPRC website brags that
Beginning the very day  Schaffer  and Wice were appointed by Becker  the prosecutors were in contact with the media  shamelessly promoting themselves by mass distributing press statements and publicity photos.  Schaffer  and  Wice  obviously intended to milk the case for all the news coverage they could get  for two self-serving reasons: to poison the well of public opinion against Paxton  and to generate free advertising to attract future clients. Neither motive is ethical for a special prosecutor. Yet   Wice  has conceded that pretrial media coverage “impacts the way potential jurors view our client’s case long before they are ushered into the courtroom for voir dire. Being able to effectively represent your client on the courthouse steps can be every bit as important as representing them inside the courtroom.”
Moreover   Wice  once cynically acknowledged the economic benefits of making media appearances  informing fellow lawyers that “appearing on TV is client development — free advertising — that might well yield future business. And you never can tell what that one local  or  with a bit of good fortune  national TV appearance  can do for you or your practice.” Exploiting the media  in other words  is the latest form of ambulance chasing. “Celebrity” attorneys  like the Kardashians  are famous for being famous.
In that vein  Schaffer and Wice continued a steady stream of self-aggrandizing communications with the press corps during the “investigation” and grand jury phases  despite the strict secrecy associated with the grand jury process. The special prosecutors had numerous communications (by email and telephone) with the New York Times’ reporter early in the case  following which the NYT reported Paxton’s indictment on August 1  2015  before the indictment was even unsealed. Was this national media scoop a coincidence? The special prosecutors were the obvious source of the highly-unprofessional leak  but the press corps gratefully reciprocated by uncritically reporting  Wice ’s spin as “news.”
In addition to regularly sending eager reporters status updates and copies of pleadings and orders  on at least two occasions  Wice  circulated to the media Paxton’s annual Personal Financial Statement  presumably to encourage reporters to scrutinize the donors to Paxton’s legal defense fund — a wholly improper purpose. In an even more egregious breach of propriety   Wice  emailed a copy of Paxton’s booking “mugshot” to his KPRC colleague  reporter Phil Archer  shortly after Paxton was released on bail. The only word to describe this type of conduct is “sleazy.”
Intemperately denouncing Paxton’s legal arguments as “frivolous” and “clearly baseless ” the special prosecutors’ tone toward Paxton dripped with contempt as they delivered sound bites to groveling reporters on deadline. When asked by a reporter about a new attorney joining the Paxton defense team to deal with the federal civil case (which was ultimately dismissed with prejudice)   Schaffer  sarcastically responded “Never heard of him. Looks like we set off the Lawyer Relief Act…” When a prominent Paxton supporter wrote an op-ed in the Midland Reporter-Telegram  criticizing the indictment  the thin-skinned prosecutors immediately issued a florid press statement — presumably on the taxpayers’ nickel — condemning the piece as a “rant” containing “lies bathed in the cologne of half-truths  fabrications and disinformation.”
Mimicking the prosecutors’ flippant and unprofessional tone  some reporters began running stories with shockingly-unbalanced headlines  such as “Another Day  Another Idiotic Ken Paxton Motion ” which  Schaffer  and Wice gleefully circulated to their media contacts  with the message “I love it.” If media outlets did not parrot the prosecutors’ swaggering narrative  they were cut off from “insider access.”
This incestuous arrangement likely explains why the Dallas Morning News  which was closely following the Paxton case  never reported the bombshell mentioned in Part 2 — that  Schaffer  was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal RICO case against the leader of the Bandidos motorcycle gang — a revelation that would have greatly tarnished the special prosecutors’ undeserved Boy Scout image — which McGaughy had gone to extraordinary lengths to burnish.
This apparently referred to Paxton’s retention of a defense team that included Dan Cogdell and Philip Hilder  with respect to whom  Schaffer  and Wice issued polite public statements.
The hundreds of email exchanges between the prosecutors and reporters (McGaughy in particular) are clearly collusive. With the avid cooperation of the press corps  for two and a half years  Schaffer  and Wice have been busy smearing Paxton through leaks and planted stories  all while risibly claiming to be “seeking justice on behalf of the people of Texas.”
To re-cap this series: The baseless  politicized prosecution of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been a travesty on many levels. Following the recusal of Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis  the matter should not have been referred to mercenary “special prosecutors” for investigation;  Schaffer  (the unindicted co-conspirator in a RICO case) and Wice (an incorrigible diva) were not suitable for the assignment in any event; the open-ended compensation arrangement agreed to by Judge Scott Becker was both unlawful and foolhardy; the grand jury indictment improperly obtained by the unscrupulous prosecutors amounts to fabricated felonies — made-up crimes never previously prosecuted in a Texas court; the overtly-biased George Gallagher presided over the case as a farcical kangaroo court; changing the venue of the case to Harris County was an absurd and outrageous denial of due process to Paxton; et cetera  ad infinitum.
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Clinton is Neutral . Trump  tweeting Sunday  wrote about the "Uranium to Russia deal" in a string of criticisms about the Clintons and Democrats.
Trump has discussed the agreement on numerous occasions â including an October 2016 campaign event when he said that  Hillary Clinton  "gave Russia 20% of American uranium  and  you know   she  was paid a fortune."
Trump's renewed focus on  the deal  is seen by many as a distraction tactic amid the Robert Mueller-led investigation into possible Russian collusion with members of his campaign during the 2016 election.
Trump claims Clinton  Dems are the ones who colluded with Russia
Here's the full story about the uranium deal â and how the Clintons are involved.
President Obama had final approval of  the deal . (JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)
With help from  Bill Clinton 's connections  Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra in 2005 was able to secure a key uranium mining deal in Kazakhstan for his company UrAsia Energy. Months later  according to a New York Times report  Giustra donated more than $30 million to  Clinton 's foundation â donations that remained secret for years. Uranium One obtained UrAsia Energy in 2007.
In 2008  then-President George W. Bush's administration reached a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia  but  the deal  was withdrawn from Senate consideration after Russia attacked Georgia.
Through  the deal   Rosatom â Russia's nuclear agency â gained a majority stake in Uranium One  and with it control of nearly 20% of the U.S. national uranium extraction capacity.
Under  the deal   no uranium at U.S. mines can be exported  except for some uranium yellowcake  which was later returned to the United States.
As Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton  among other members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States  would have input over the deal. But the approval rested with Obama   not Clinton .
 Clinton 's campaign  DNC funded research in Trump dossier: report
Clintons gain
People connected with Uranium One donated $145 million to  the Clinton Foundation   much of  it  before the deal was reached  and  Bill Clinton  also got $500 000 from a Kremlin-linked bank for a speech in Moscow.
With help from  Bill Clinton 's connections  Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra in 2005 was able to secure a key uranium mining deal in Kazakhstan for his company UrAsia Energy. (Theo Wargo/Getty Images)
Those donations weren't initially disclosed â despite  Hillary Clinton  signing a memorandum of understanding â and  the Clinton Foundation  apologized.
[EX A]:
no