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].

Example Input: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Clinton is Negative . Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said a meeting revealed in the House Intelligence Committee memo released Friday shows that  the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee  likely knew about the dossier  despite  their  denials.
The memo revealed that the law firm representing the  Clinton  campaign and the DNC  Perkins Coie  hosted âat least oneâ meeting in Washington  D.C. in 2016 with dossier author Christopher Steele  Fusion GPS  and media outlets  in which the dossierâs research was discussed.
According to Meadows  Perkins Coie could likely not have hosted the meeting without getting its clientâs permission â in this case  the  Clinton  campaign and the DNC â due to attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege would give the  Clinton  campaign and the DNC control over what Perkins Coie could share with other parties â especially the media.
âI canât imagine that a law firm would set that up and bring in the media without knowledge of some individual within the DNC or the  Hillary Clinton  campaign directing them to do so  because it would break an attorney-client privilege to bring in the media and allow that to be exposed without that happening â Meadows said during a conference call with reporters about the memo on Friday.
The  Clinton  campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million from June 2015  and the DNC paid Fusion GPS $3.65 million beginning in November 2015  according to the Washington Post. Obama for America also paid Fusion GPS $972 000 since April 2016  according to The Federalist.
Even after that   Clinton    her  top campaign and DNC officials denied knowing they were paying for the dossier.  Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook  told CNN that  he  was unaware that the  Clinton  campaign was paying Fusion GPS.
âI didnât know that we were paying the contractor that created that document â  Mook  told CNN on November 3  2017.
 Former Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta  also told Senate Intelligence Committee investigators last year that  he  did not know they were paying for the dossier  according to CNN.
Example Output: no

Example Input: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Rodrigo Duterte is Negative . Outspoken Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte added to his legendary list of outrageous claims Thursday when he bragged about stabbing a person to death when he was 16 years old -- and  Duterte  raised even more eyebrows when he reportedly later called former President Barack Obama "so black and arrogant."
In a defiant speech hitting back at critics of his deadly drug crackdown   Duterte  said  he  would go into jails and have “rumbles here  rumbles there.”
“At the age of 16  I already killed someone. A real person  a rumble  a stabbing ”  Duterte  said during a summit in the Vietnamese city of Danang  according to the BBC. “I was just 16 years old. It was just over a look. How much more now that I am president.”
A spokesman for  Duterte  said the remarks had been made “in jest.”
 Duterte  also hit Obama  slamming  his  former U.S. counterpart for criticizing the Philippines drug war.
“These white people  those from [the European Union]  the ignorant Americans  pretending to be  this Obama ”  Duterte  said  according to The Philippine Star. “You are so black and arrogant. [He] reprimanded me. Why you reprimand me? I’m the president of a country.”
Since  Duterte  took office 16 months ago  police said more than 3 960 people have been killed in the war on drugs. Another 2 290 people have been murdered in drug-related crimes  the government said.
Last year   Duterte  said  he  would be “happy to slaughter” millions of drug addicts and that  he  even fatally shot criminals while  he  was mayor of the southern city of Davao to set an example for police.
Thursday was not even the first time  he  has mentioned stabbing and killing someone while a teenager. In 2015   he  told the Philippines edition of Esquire magazine that during a “tumultuous fight in the beach” when  he  was 17  “maybe I stabbed somebody to death.”
It’s unclear if  he  was referring to the same incident in Thursday’s speech.
Example Output: no

Example Input: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Hillary Clinton is Negative . The Justice Department is reviving investigations involving Hillary Clintonâs emails and the degree to which the State Department during Mrs. Clintonâs tenure as secretary was put in the service of the Clinton Foundation. Good. Indeed  it is long overdue. It underscores a point weâve tried to make repeatedly here: You donât need a special counsel for this kind of thing; such investigations are what we have a Justice Department full of career prosecutors for. The perverse institution of the independent prosecutor should be shunned whenever possible â and its jurisdiction tightly confined in the rare necessary case.
Obamaâs first point led to one of the great head-fakes in modern law-enforcement history â one that reverberates to this day. Using his bully pulpit  the president framed the  Clinton  case as one of negligence. The portrayal stuck: Incessantly  the Justice Department  the media  and eventually James Comey  then-director of the FBI  addressed the case in terms of Mrs. Clintonâs purported carelessness â a hardworking public officialâs regrettable but forgivable inattention to detail.
Even now  critics of  Clinton  and the FBI are in a lather over reports that  as Comeyâs team drafted his remarks exonerating  Clinton  (notwithstanding that key witnesses  including  Clinton   herself   had not been interviewed)  agent Peter Strzok changed the term âgrossly negligentâ to âextremely careless.â Substantively  these terms are indistinguishable. The emendation is said to be critical  though  because the statute applicable to  Clinton âs conduct criminalizes âgross negligence.â If Comey had said the words âgrossly negligent â so the story goes  it would be the equivalent of pronouncing  Clinton  guilty.
This was a straightforward case of criminal intent. Negligence was the fallback position â for a prosecutor  an âeven ifâ theory  as in: âEven if youâre not convinced by our overwhelming evidence of  Clinton âs willfully illegal retention and transmission of classified information  you can still comfortably find  her  guilty if you conclude that  she  was grossly negligent â which  as the judge will tell you in his instructions  simply means âextremely careless.ââ
Mrs. Clintonâs criminal intent was so clear that its obfuscation also required Obamaâs second point: Mrs. Clintonâs lack of intent to imperil the United States. Director Comey hammered his bossâs legerdemain again and again. And why not? After all  it was true  â Clinton  unquestionably had no desire to endanger our country. Itâs always good to go with the truth . . . especially if you have the luxury of a Democrat-smitten media that wonât ask whether the truth youâve highlighted is relevant to the matter under investigation.
Second  you may be saying to yourself: âBut âintent to harm the United Statesâ is significant  so it should be part of a classified-information offense.â Thatâs right  and thatâs why it is a part of a classified-information offense â it just happens not to be the offense weâre talking about in Mrs.  Clinton âs case.
If an official illegally transmits classified information âwith an intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States â then that official commits the more serious felony offense prescribed at the top of the Espionage Actâs scale â subsection (a). If someone had suggested charging  Mrs. Clinton  with this treasonous offense  then  she   President Obama  and Director Comey would have been quite right to stress that  she  had no such intent. But no one suggested that. Rather  it was urged that  she  had transmitted classified information on purpose  but not with intent to do the country harm. That is less heinous than the treasonous offense. But it is still egregious. It is a crime that puts the lives of intelligence sources and the effectiveness of life-saving intelligence operations at risk.
That  Clinton  did not intend that any harm come to the United States does not make  her  innocent of willfully transmitting classified information to unauthorized persons or places.
Moreover  it is a black-letter principle that a personâs innocence of Crime A is inadmissible to prove that the person has not committed Crime B. For example  the fact that I have not personally sold drugs has no bearing on whether I laundered drug money. And the fact that  Mrs. Clinton  did not intend that any harm come to the United States does not make  her  innocent of willfully transmitting classified information to unauthorized persons or places  or of retaining it when  she  left the government and when the State Department finally requested that  she  surrender the government records in  her  possession.
Regardless of whether my motive theory is sound  however  the evidence that  Clinton  willfully mishandled classified information is mountainous.
Before she was ever secretary of state   Clinton  lived and worked in a White House where classified-information protocols were observed.  She  had to apply these protocols for years as a senator whose committee assignments were intelligence-intensive. Before becoming secretary of state   she  was indoctrinated in the handling of classified information and signed documentation attesting that  she  had read and understood the relevant executive orders about intelligence classification and handling.
 Clinton  well understood that the position of secretary of state involved immersion in classified information.  She  wrote in  her  memoir about the extraordinary steps  she  was required to take to safeguard classified information. Given the nature of  her  responsibilities for foreign relations and national security   her  decision to conduct all  her  government business on a private server system made it inevitable that classified information would be transmitted in and stored on the private system. There is no possibility that  she  did not know this. The private system  she  set up was in violation of government and State Department regulations.  Her  loyal staff fought efforts to bring  her  into the government email system â even though  she  forced the resignation of an ambassador over  among other things  his conducting of government business over an unauthorized private email system.
When the request was made that  Clinton  surrender  her  emails to the State Department   she  turned them over to  her  own lawyers and subordinates who did not have the security clearances required for access to the information.  She  destroyed tens of thousands of emails  even though they were under subpoena  so that they could not be reviewed by the State Department or the FBI. Of the 30 000  she  deigned to surrender to the State Department  over 2 000 contained classified information  some of it among the nationâs most highly classified national-defense secrets. And  she  serially lied in  her  public statements about  her  emails  in congressional testimony (in which  she  brazenly claimed to have turned over all work-related email to the State Department  and that  her  lawyers had carefully reviewed every email before designating which should be surrendered and which withheld)  and in  her  FBI interview (in which  she  pretended not to know what the ubiquitous â[C]â designation â for confidential â in classified documents meant).
Any prosecutor who understood there was no need to prove intent to harm the United States would be delighted to take that case to the jury â especially once the prosecutor realized heâd get to tell the jury: âEven if you suspend disbelief and buy the defense argument that  she  didnât mean to horde and transmit classified information  you must still find  her  guilty if you conclude  she  was grossly negligent â as in âextremely carelessâ.â
Example Output:
yes