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].

[Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Christopher Wray is Neutral . Follow a critique of the FBI by President Trump on Monday   Christopher Wray   the director of the FBI  sent out an internal letter to employees on Monday  a government source confirmed to Fox News.
In it   Wray  wrote that  he  was "inspired by example after example of professionalism and dedication to justice demonstrated around the Bureau. It is truly an honor to represent you."
"We are entrusted with protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution and laws of the United States "  Wray  also wrote. "Because of the importance of our mission  we are also entrusted with great power  and we should expect – and welcome – people asking tough questions about how we use that power. That goes with this job and always has."
 Wray  emerged from a list of former prosecutors  politicians and law enforcement officials interviewed by Trump to become director of the bureau.
When was  Wray  installed as FBI Director?
 Wray  was formally installed as the new director of the FBI on Sep. 28  after  he  was confirmed by the Senate on a 92-5 vote in August. All five nay votes came from Democrats.
 He  was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in July  after  he  appeared before the committee. President Trump called Wray "an impeccably qualified individual" in a June statement.
What did  Wray  do before  he  was confirmed by the Senate?
 Wray  worked at the King & Spalding law firm  where  he 'd been a partner since August 2005   his  Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire said.
 Wray  also represented New Jersey governor Chris Christie during the investigation into the George Washington Bridge lane-closing case  nicknamed "Bridgegate." Two former Christie aides were convicted of plotting to close bridge lanes to punish a Democratic mayor who wouldn't endorse the Republican governor.
What about  Wray 's time at the Department of Justice (DOJ)?
 Wray  worked as an associate deputy attorney general in 2001  before  he  was principal associate deputy attorney general from 2001 - 2003   his  Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire says. From 2003 to 2005   Wray  worked as assistant attorney general for the criminal division under President George W. Bush.
What do we know about  Wray 's career before working for the DOJ?
 Wray  graduated from Yale University in 1989 before graduating from  its  law school three years later  the DOJ says online.  He  was an assistant U.S. attorney in Georgia from 1997 to 2001.
Before that   Wray  was an associate at King and Spalding from 1993 to 1997  according to  his  Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire. From 1992 to 1993   he  was a clerk for Judge J. Michael Luttig  with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
[A]: no


[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.
[A]: no


[Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Ed Gillespie is Neutral . Ralph Northam beat  Ed Gillespie  in the governorâs race 53.9 to 45 percent â by nearly nine points. Justin Fairfax beat Jill Vogel in the lieutenant governorâs race 52.7 to 47.3. And Mark Herring beat John Adams 53.3 to 46.7 percent.
By comparison  Hillary Clinton won 52.8 percent of the two-party portion of the 2016 vote to Donald Trumpâs 47.2 percent. Vogel and Adams were known as strong Trump supporters  whereas  Gillespie  was known as an establishment Republican who tried to embrace Trumpism without talking about Trump. Vogel and Adams performed state-wide roughly the same as Trump did  whereas  Gillespie  just got crushed.  Gillespie  only lost  his  2014 Senate race to Warner by less than a percentage point.
What does it mean that  Gillespie  performed not just worse than Trump  and worse than  he  did in 2014  but worse than  his  top-of-the-ballot cohorts who were openly Trump-supportive? Many theories have been offered.
Some say  his  attempt at fusionism failed  and that you canât be half a populist and expect voters to buy it. Others say  he  didnât have the benefit of running against Clinton  a candidate who managed to lose nationwide despite having so many resources supporting her. Others say itâs just Gillespie himself â a seasoned swamp lobbyist and establishment figure running for office at a time when voters have had enough of that sort. But  Gillespie  performed quite well with downstate  traditional conservative Republican voters  failing to resonate in  his  own homeland of Northern Virginia.  He  only did a tiny bit better than Trump in the heart of the swamp â Fairfax County. Thatâs Gillespieâs home county!
No matter the cause   Gillespie  didnât do as well as Trump in a race where his running mate Vogel did slightly better than Trump had.
If  Gillespie  had won  his  race for the governorship and the Republicans kept the House of Delegates despite the lack of progress by Republicans who control the congressional and executive branches  maybe there would be an argument for continuing in that vein. But with Democrats emboldened by their huge win in Virginia and a demoralized Republican base  members of Congress are delusional if they think they can keep their jobs without passing tax reform  repealing Obamacare  and some other dramatic achievement.
[A]:
yes