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].
--------
Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Michael Cohen is Positive . "In a private transaction in 2016  I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130 000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford "  Michael Cohen  said in a statement. "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford  and neither reimbursed me for the payment  either directly or indirectly."
Just weeks before the 2016 election   Cohen  reportedly created a private LLC to pay Clifford  otherwise known as Stormy Daniels  following an alleged July 2006 encounter with Trump  The Wall Street Journal reported in January
Following initial reports last month that  Cohen  had made the payment   he  said in a statement that Trump "vehemently denies" any encounter between the two.
In January   the organization Common Cause filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department  alleging that the reported payment to Clifford constituted a campaign finance violation. But on Tuesday   Cohen 's statement denied that accusation and said the monetary exchange was "lawful" and "not a campaign contribution."
"The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful  and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone "  Cohen  said.
 Cohen  also said  he  filed a reply with the FEC  but that filing will not be public until the agency has resolved the matter.
When asked why  he  made the payment   Cohen  told CNN: "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."

Answer: yes


Question: 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."

Answer: yes


Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Adam Schiff is Negative . Ranking House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)  fired back at President Donald Trump on Saturday after the president claimed the FISA memo âvindicatesâ him.
How did  Schiff  respond?
In fact   Schiff  claimed the âmost important factâ in the memo was the FBIâs counterintelligence investigation into Trumpâs campaign began in the summer of 2016.
Quite the opposite  Mr. President. The most important fact disclosed in this otherwise shoddy memo was that FBI investigation began July 2016 with your advisor  Papadopoulos  who was secretly discussing stolen Clinton emails with the Russians. [Link] â Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) February 3  2018
Previously   Schiff  warned of the alleged dangers releasing the memo would have on national security.  His  rhetoric went so far as to claim its release would trigger a âconstitutional crisis.â
 Schiff  and other House Democrats are pushing for a counter-memo they compiled to be released. Their memo allegedly refutes much of the FISA memo  which was compiled by House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Rep. Trey Gwody (R-S.C.). Republicans have signaled they believe the  Schiff  memo should be released.

Answer:
no