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].

Input: Consider Input: 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."

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Nikki Haley is Positive . The vote came after  U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley  issued a stern warning United Nations that the United States "will remember" countries that voted for the measure.
 Haley  hinted that U.S. financial support for the U.N. is not guaranteed and that the U.S. should not be expected to support an organization that condemned it.
"The United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations "  she  said  noting that "our participation in the U.N. produces great good for the world."
 Haley  said "the United States will remember this day" when it was "singled out for attack."
"America will put our embassy in Jerusalem "  Haley  said  adding that "no vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that. But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look on the U.N."

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Jerry Richardson is Neutral . It has been a long time since two teams induced as many sofa spasms as the New England Patriots and Pittsburgh Steelers did  with those three false endings in the last two minutes. You thought  finally  the NFL is all about the game again. But just then  the skin-crawly headline came across the bottom of the screen  turning attention away from Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger to an old pot-belly named Jerry Richardson.
[Panthers owner Jerry Richardson announces plan to sell team amid NFL investigation]
Yet the viewer’s head swiveled back and forth between the Patriots-Steelers epic in the icing rain  and the alleged fetishes and racial attitudes of Carolina Panthers owner  Richardson  in  his  owner suite. On Friday  the Panthers announced that Richardson was being investigated for workplace abuses  and by Sunday morning  the story had exploded when Sports Illustrated published a host of sordid specific accusations ranging from sexual harassment to using a racial slur against an employee. These included Richardson supposedly asking to shave the legs of female employees and demanding to examine their backsides in their jeans.
But that wasn’t the end of the NFL day. Not thirty minutes after the final play in Pittsburgh  with fans still filing out of the stadium  came the seismic announcement that  Richardson  will be selling the Panthers  the franchise  he  has owned since it was founded in 1993. No explanation was offered  or needed. You have to assume that the disclosures were going to get uglier.
[Analysis: Forget the catch rule. The league has a replay problem] 
Richardson  is a perfect example of the extent to which the sheer girths of owners’ egos are eclipsing what should be the NFL’s true narrative: the game. Their incessant internecine rivalries and power struggles have become a chronic story line. It was  Richardson  who set the poisonous current tone of management-player relations  when  he  declared during the 2011 collective bargaining that the owners had “a [expletive] deal and we’re going to take back our league and [expletive] do something about it.” It was  Richardson  who  inexplicably grown arrogant on  his  Hardees franchise money  sat across a table and barked at Peyton Manning: “Do I need to help you read a revenue chart  son? Because I don’t know if you know how to read that.”
Richardson  no doubt  is also capable of individual kindness  and other owners will profess sorrow over his decision to sell  and wax nostalgic over the fact that he once caught passes from Johnny Unitas with the 1959-60 Baltimore Colts.  Richardson  is a self-made man  the first player since George Halas to acquire an ownership stake. But  Richardson   sadly  has acted as a toxic hardliner devoted to ensuring that no other player would ever be treated like a partner or equal.


Output: yes