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 Murphy is Neutral . Sen. Chris Murphy  D-Conn.  blasted President Donald Trump's method of dealing with North Korea in a Wednesday interview.
"It's not surprising that our negotiations are on life support right now. President Trump is deploying what is perhaps the worst negotiating strategy in the history of the American presidency  " Murphy  said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"It's not just that he's out there calling this guy names  " Murphy  said  referring to Trump calling North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "Little Rocket Man."
"It's that he is publicly undercutting his Department of State by tweeting out that Rex Tillerson does not have his support and cannot talk and negotiate on his behalf  " Murphy  said in the MSNBC interview.
 He  said that Trump is correct to point out that the U.S. has a military option.
"But you've actually got to empower your diplomats to do the work  and you've got to communicate that the previous nuclear deals that other presidents have signed are still good. By threatening to back out of the Iran nuclear agreement  you're not incentivizing the North Koreans to enter into their own agreement  " Murphy  said.
"It's a combination of military threats  of real bilateral  multilateral economic sanctions  which this president cannot put together  because he is out there insulting all of the allies who would work with us on sanctions  and empowering your diplomats  " Murphy  said.
" He  is doing none of the things to achieve a real diplomatic breakthrough."
Also on Wednesday   Murphy  is introducing a gun control bill in support of universal background checks  but  he  said  he  is realistic about its chances of passing. "I'm not naÃ¯ve about our chances to pass this bill in this Congress  but it's important to have this as a fulcrum point for the movement  " Murphy  said  according to The Washington Post.
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Elaine Luria is Negative . The reason I raise this now is because weâve got a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination (and just named to the DCCCâs âRed-to-Blueâ list) in VA-02  Elaine Luria  who voted for Republican Scott Taylor both in the 2016 GOP primary AND in the 2016 general election against the Democratic nominee in VA-02. According to Patrick Wilsonâs report in the RTD (bolding added by me for emphasis):
â Elaine  doesnât make decisions just based on political party â  her  campaign manager said by email. âFaced with the options on the ballot   she  took a chance on fellow veteran Scott Taylor who promised to bring change and be something different  but he broke those promises.â
âLike many Democrats in our district   Elaine  voted against Randy Forbes in that primary because he had shown during his legislative career to be an extreme voice in Congress  particularly when it came to womenâs reproductive freedom  LGBT equality  and preventing gun violence â Luria campaign manager Kathryn Sorenson said by email.
âNow  after seeing the way that Scott Taylor has acted in Washington and the votes he has taken to create chaos in our health care system   Elaine  has decided to run against him.â
Back in January  I had actually asked  Luria  about  her  vote in the GOP primary  and  she  responded: âThat year  there was no Democratic primary for Congress and I wanted to have my voice heard on who was on the ballot.â I responded to  her  that âI would have voted for Mickey Mouse or something in that one.â I havenât heard a word from  her  since. LOL
At this point  I havenât chosen a candidate in VA-02  but itâs been between  Luria  and Karen Mallard  the only two serious contenders for the Democratic nomination  as far as Iâm concerned. But Iâve got to say  the news about  Luria  voting for Taylor really bugs me  for at least three reasons.
First off  I think that Taylor is going to have a field day with this. Already  Taylorâs spokesperson is responding gleefully to the RTD  âScott Taylor is the same guy he was in 2016 and has done everything he said he would on the campaign. The only reason  Luria  is running is because she was promised money by Nancy Pelosi to be another rubber stamp in D.C. The people of the 2nd district will see right through it.â Expect to hear a LOT of that type of language in coming months  and certainly if  Elaine Luria  becomes the Democratic nominee in VA-02. So yeah  I truly do not see how this will help  Luria  win the general election. To the contrary  I think it will hurt  her  that  she  voted not once but twice for the same guy  she  voted for less than two years ago.
So thatâs my âJim Webb testâ for Democratic candidates who used to vote Republican: can you explain  articulately and convincingly  why you used to vote Republican (or even serve in a Republican administration) but are now a Democrat? Regarding  Elaine Luria    she  very well might have such a case to make  but so far I havenât heard it. To the contrary  Iâve mostly heard about how  she  doesnât vote based on party (whatever that means  given the stark differences between Democrats and the Party of Sarah Palin  Ken Cuccinelli  Corey Stewart  E.W. Jackson  Donald Trump  etc.  etc.)  how  Taylor  supposedly wasnât what  she  expected  him  to be  etc.
On that latter point  my friend Josh Stanfield of Activate Virginia posted on  his  groupâs Facebook page this morning something that rings true to me: â Scott Taylor  was a member of the House of Delegates and had a partisan voting record in that body. When  he  ran for Congress in 2016  anyone interested in  his  politics or voting behavior wouldâve been just a few clicks away from discovering  his  opposition to pretty much every Democratic priority.â
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Donald Fagen Sues is Neutral . Steely Dan's Donald Fagen  is suing the estate of  his  late bandmate  Walter Becker  in order to retain control of the band. The crux of the suit is a Buy/Sell Agreement  Fagen  and Becker signed in 1972  not long before the release of their debut album  Can't Buy a Thrill. The contract stipulated that if a member of Steely Dan quit or died  the band would purchase all of that member's shares in the group.
"Fagen – acting on behalf of himself and on behalf of Steely Dan  as its sole remaining officer and director – hereby exercises the mandatory provision of the Buy/Sell Agreement requiring Steely Dan to purchase Becker's shares " the suit reads. "This lawsuit is required for Steely Dan and  Fagen  to obtain a judicial determination that Becker's shares must be sold to Steely Dan pursuant to the express terms of the Buy/Sell Agreement  so that Steely Dan and  Fagen  can go on as contemplated and provided by the Buy/Sell Agreement."
Along with Becker's Estate   Fagen  is also suing Steely Dan's longtime business management firm Nigro  Karlin  Segal  Feldstein & Bolno. NKSFB has also acted as the accountant for the group's touring company  Danette  and as a business manager for Becker and Delia Becker. Fagen's lawsuit alleges that NKSFB has been withholding pertinent information from him – such as royalty statements and records regarding tour income – and "engaging in other secretive behaviors."
As for NKSFB  the lawsuit further alleges that over the past few years  Fagen  has become aware of several "accounting errors by NKSFB  one of which involved millions of dollars  and another of which resulted in a lawsuit by a former member of the band." The suit also claims that NKSFB has hired a law firm on Steely Dan's behalf  without telling  Fagen . It argues  "Especially now  with the Becker Defendants taking a position adverse to Steely Dan and with the Becker Defendants retaining NKSFB  a full and complete accounting is necessary to protect [Fagen's] interests."
 Fagen  is seeking an official ruling that will hold up the Buy/Sell Agreement and force Becker's estate to sell the late musician's shares to Steely Dan.  He  is also seeking damages stemming from the "repudiation and breach" of the agreement. While the suit does not name a specific dollar amount  it suggests it could be in excess of $1 million.
[EX A]:
no