instruction:
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 Harry Hohmeister is Negative . Lufthansa ’ s ( LHAG . DE ) first flight from Berlin to the United States in over 16 years took off on Wednesday   although a slow start to sales shows the difficulties involved in trying to replace the gaps left by insolvent rival Air Berlin . FILE PHOTO : A Lufthansa Airbus A321 - 200 plane is seen at Tegel airport in Berlin   Germany   November 2   2017 . REUTERS / Axel Schmidt Germany ’ s second largest carrier Air Berlin ( AB1 . DE ) filed for insolvency in August and carried out its last flight at the end of last month   leaving a gap in the market for long - haul flights from the German capital in particular . “ Of course bookings are slow at this stage  ”  Lufthansa board member Harry Hohmeister  told Reuters at Berlin ’ s Tegel airport ahead of the departure of the flight to New York ’ s JFK on Wednesday .  He  said that usually Lufthansa would give 12 months notice of a new long - haul route   or eight months at a minimum   but in this case it had only six weeks to sell tickets ahead of the first flight . “ The next four weeks will be difficult   then we get a peak at Christmas time and then it will develop better   otherwise we wouldn ’ t do it  ”  Hohmeister  said . Lufthansa has traditionally shied away from long - haul flights from Berlin   instead flying intercontinental routes from its hubs in Frankfurt and Munich .  Hohmeister  said the Lufthansa group was currently looking at other long - haul options from Berlin   but that any would likely be flown by its budget arm Eurowings . Lufthansa is currently awaiting EU approval for a deal to take over large parts of Air Berlin   which will see it adding 81 planes to the group . The collapse of Air Berlin means Berlin Airports will see a dip in passenger number growth this year after a period of strong demand . Britain ’ s easyJet ( EZJ . L )  which is planning to take over some Air Berlin operations at Tegel   has said it expects to run a reduced schedule this winter from the airport . “ We expect that new partners will quickly bring growth  ” Berlin Airports CEO Engelbert Luetke Dalderup said   urging Lufthansa to “ never say never ” to the idea of Berlin as a hub .
answer:
no


question:
Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Steele Steele is Negative . Sen . Chuck Grassley speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill in December 2017 . ( Reuters file photo : Aaron . P . Bernstein ) We need a full - blown investigation of how the FISA court came to grant warrants to spy on Carter Page . In a word   the Grassley - Graham memo is shocking . Yet   the press barely notices . Rest assured : If a Republican administration had used unverifiable hearsay from a patently suspect agent of the Republican presidential candidate to gull the FISA court into granting a warrant to spy on an associate of the Democratic nominee ’ s campaign   it would be covered as the greatest political scandal in a half - century . Instead   it was the other way around . The Grassley - Graham memo corroborates the claims in the Nunes memo : The Obama Justice Department and FBI used anonymously sourced   Clinton - campaign generated innuendo to convince the FISA court to issue surveillance warrants against Carter Page   and in doing so   they concealed the Clinton campaign ’ s role . Though the Trump campaign had cut ties with Page shortly before the first warrant was issued in October 2016   the warrant application was based on wild allegations of a corrupt conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin . Moreover   the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page ’ s forward - going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i . e .  his Trump campaign communications . x With its verification by the Grassley - Graham memo   the Nunes memo now has about a thousand times more corroboration than the Steele dossier   the basis of the heinous allegations used by the Justice Department and FBI to get the FISA warrants . What the Grassley - Graham memo tells us is that the Nunes memo   for all the hysteria about it   was tame . The Grassley - Graham memo tells us that we need not only a full - blown investigation of what possessed the Obama administration to submit such shoddy applications to the FISA court   but of how a judge — or perhaps as many as four judges — rationalized signing the warrants . Advertisement We need full disclosure — the warrants   the applications   the court proceedings . Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are senior Republicans on the Judiciary Committee ( which Grassley chairs   while Graham chairs a relevant subcommittee ). As we ’ ve previously detailed ( in a two - part series   here and here )  they composed their memo in support of a criminal referral recommending that dossier author Christopher Steele be investigated for making false statements to the FBI ( which is a felony ). Initially   the senators ’ memo was withheld   then it was released with extensive redactions because its contents were largely classified — covering submissions to the FISA court   the secret tribunal established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act . But following the release of the Nunes memo — the memo prepared by Republican majority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence led by Representative Devin Nunes ( R .  Calif .) — Senators Grassley and Graham stepped up their admirable efforts to get more information unsealed . so that the public can see it   even if the press prefers not to cover it . Last Friday   the Nunes memo asserted that the FBI and Justice Department had significantly relied on the unverified Steele dossier to obtain FISA warrants on Page . In the week that followed   House Intelligence Committee Democrats and their media echo chamber bleated about how things had been taken out of context   with some suggesting that there was plenty of other evidence to establish probable cause that Page was acting as a Russian agent . ( See my column last Sunday responding to claims by Representative Jerrold Nadler   here .) It was even implied that Nunes & Co . had deceptively reported committee testimony by the FBI ’ s then deputy director Andrew McCabe that the Steele dossier was essential to this probable - cause showing . We ’ re not hearing much of that now . Here ’ s the Grassley - Graham memo on the critical first FISA application   the basis for the warrant granted on October 21   2016 : The bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr . Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier . The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr . Page   although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr . Steele ’ s dossier . We ’ ll come to the news article — the stupefying circular attempt to corroborate Steele with Steele . For the moment   suffice it to say that the senators have confirmed the Nunes memo ’ s account   except with much more information than House Republicans were able to include . Information such as this : When asked at the March 2017 briefing [ of Judiciary Committee leaders ] why the FBI relied on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration — and in light of the highly political motives surrounding its creation — then - Director [ James ] Comey stated that the FBI included the dossier allegations about Carter Page in the FISA applications because Mr . Steele himself was considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau . On this score   Grassley and Graham quote directly from the warrant applications : “ Based on [ Steele ’ s ] previous reporting history with the FBI whereby [ Steele ] provided reliable information to the FBI   the FBI believes [ Steele ’ s ] reporting to be credible .” ( Emphasis added .) I cannot stress enough how irregular this is . It is why there is abundant reason to demand that the judge explain his or her rationale for granting the warrant . As I outlined at greater length last week ( here   in section C )  in applying for a warrant   the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable - cause finding .  Steele  was not one of those witnesses .  He  is not the source of the facts .  He  is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians   much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay   sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge .  Steele  has not been in Russia since  his  cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago .  He  has sources   who have sources   who have sources . None of  his  information is better than third - hand ; most of it is more attenuated than that . For purposes of justifying a warrant   it does not matter that   in a totally unrelated investigation ( involving corruption at FIFA   the international soccer organization )  the FBI judged that the hearsay information provided by Steele   then a British agent   checked out . In his anti - Trump research   Steele could not verify his sources . Furthermore   he was now a former foreign intelligence officer who was then working for private clients — which is the advocacy business   not the search - for - truth business . A judge would need to know whether Steele ’ s sources were reliable   not whether Steele himself was reliable . Let that sink in   then think about this contrast : No actual FBI agent   no matter how renowned   would be able to get a judicial warrant based solely on his own reliability as an investigator . Jim Comey   despite having a résumé geometrically more impressive than Steele ’ s   including Senate confirmations to some of federal law - enforcement ’ s loftiest positions   would not be given a warrant based on representations to the court that the FBI   the Justice Department   the president   and the Senate all attested to his impeccable reliability . The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants   not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants . The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims : Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged   and if so   does the informant have a track record of providing verified information ? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point . A judge would need to know whether Steele ’ s sources were reliable   not whether Steele himself was reliable . Advertisement This is not esoterica . In the investigations biz   this is so basic that to call it “ Warrants 101 ” doesn ’ t do it justice . If you don ’ t have witnesses with verifiable   first - hand knowledge   you don ’ t have anything . Without them   to borrow Director Comey ’ s notorious dictum   no reasonable prosecutor would bring a warrant application to a federal judge   and no reasonable judge would issue a warrant . If there is no credible sourcing for the factual allegations in the warrant application   that is a probable - cause deficiency that could not have been cured by the reputation of the purveyor of the sources   no matter how sterling . That said   it is obvious that the less identifiable and reliable the informants are   the greater is the government ’ s obligation to be transparent in conveying the investigator ’ s potential biases . The Obama administration ’ s malfeasance on this point is breathtaking . Graham and Grassley recount : The FBI noted to a vaguely limited extent the political origins of the dossier . In footnote 8 [ of the first warrant application   apparently repeated in the subsequent applications ] the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm who had hired an “ identified U . S . person ” — now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS . The fact that Fusion GPS ’ s ultimate client was the Clinton campaign was never disclosed in any of the warrant applications   which ran well beyond June 2017   when the last 90 - day extension was granted . Patently   so much struggle and circumlocution went into crafting this “ vaguely limited ” footnote that we can only conclude the decision not to disclose the Clinton connection was the subject of much deliberation . The Clinton campaign ’ s sponsorship was not publicly disclosed until October 2017 . Before then   it is virtually certain that   to the extent the FISA court and Congress were told of the “ political origins ” of the dossier   these were benignly presented as bipartisan concerns about Donald Trump . That is   the  Steele  dossier phase of Fusion ’ s anti - Trump project was conflated with the earlier phase   when — as Simpson has testified — Fusion did documentary research on Trump during the Republican primaries for a conservative media outlet . It was not disclosed that   by the time  Steele  was hired to do the dossier   the project was backed exclusively by the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign . Manifestly   that was a material fact . If a prosecutor withheld an arguably exculpatory fact of this degree of significance   it could get a conviction reversed . As some have observed   a public company would likely face a stock fraud prosecution for concealing a fact so patently material from its required SEC reports . The Clinton - campaign tie should have been disclosed from the beginning . Now   consider what happened as the surveillance continued for the better part of a year . In late October 2016   shortly after the first warrant was issued   the FBI terminated its relationship with  Steele  because  he  lied to the Bureau about  his  contacts with the media . But the Justice Department did not report this to the FISA court . Instead   when the first warrant expired in January 2017   the FBI and Justice Department sought its renewal by   again   relying on the credibility of the guy they ’ d booted for lying . In another lawyerly footnote   they told the FISA court that  Steele  had been terminated not because  he  lied but because  he  was guilty of “ unauthorized disclosure of information to the press .” But that was not the half of it . Steele ’ s agreement with the FBI was that he would not communicate with the press . He made that agreement and then communicated with the press anyway — which showed he was unreliable   notwithstanding the FBI ’ s continued insistence to the contrary . He hadn ’ t just flouted the agreement by speaking to the press   though ; he had clearly lied about doing so . By mid - September 2016   at Fusion ’ s direction and even before the first FISA warrant was issued    Steele  had spoken with a plethora of Clinton - friendly press outlets . As a result   Yahoo News published a news story by Michael Isikoff on September 23   which reported precisely the information that  Steele  had given to the FBI about Page : that  he  ’ d supposedly met in Moscow with two top Russian operatives and discussed the lifting of sanctions against Russia . Advertisement How could the FBI and Justice Department not have known that  Steele  was the source for this story ? Isikoff explicitly stated that his account of Page ’ s activities was set forth in “ intelligence reports ” that were in the possession of “ U . S . officials .” Plainly   the FBI was privy to intelligence reports in the government ’ s possession — the purported “ intelligence ” reports  Steele  had provided as well as any others . Had there been another intel report from a different source who happened to provide the same exact information  Steele  had provided   not only would the FBI have known about it ; the Bureau would have touted it to the FISA court as critical corroboration of Steele ’ s anonymous sources . To the contrary   the FISA court was told : “ The FBI does not believe that [  Steele  ] directly provided this information to the press .” I ’ ve emphasized “ directly ” to highlight how curious this assertion is . Ostensibly   the Bureau seems to have been saying that  Steele  was not the source — meaning that there must have been another source   yet one the Bureau had not managed to identify even though this mystery source was described in intelligence reports accessible to the Bureau . On the other hand   what does “ directly ” mean ? By using that qualifier   was the Bureau conceding that  Steele  might have provided information to the press indirectly – i . e .  through an intermediary ? But that would make no sense : What would be the point of citing the Isikoff article as corroboration for  Steele  if  Steele  had been Isikoff ’ s source   even if indirectly ? It is not good   one way or the other . Either  Steele  lied to the FBI about speaking to the press   or the FBI consciously avoided learning that  Steele  had spoken to Isikoff and then speculated to the court that  Steele  was probably not Isikoff ’ s source . Either way   Steele ’ s credibility was a huge issue . That put in doubt the FBI ’ s vouching for his reliability   which in turn made disclosure of the Clinton campaign ’ s sponsorship of his dossier even more imperative . Or how about this :  Steele  gave a published interview to Mother Jones in late October 2016   after promising not to speak to the media . In trying to soft - peddle the palpable unreliability  Steele  had thus exhibited   the FBI rationalized that  he  was acting not out of dishonesty but in a fit of pique over Director Comey ’ s pre - election announcement that the FBI had reopened the Clinton emails investigation . This   of course   is the announcement that Clinton partisans blame for their candidate ’ s loss . So   according to the Bureau   Steele ’ s pro - Clinton partisanship induced him to such outrage over Comey ’ s announcement that he was moved to violate his agreement with the FBI . Wouldn ’ t you think it might then occur to the Bureau and the Justice Department that maybe   just maybe   they ought to let the court in on that teeny detail about the Clinton campaign ’ s being the sponsor of Steele ’ s dossier ? Instead they kept mum and they kept telling the court  Steele  was perfectly reliable . In fact   they kept telling the FISA court  he  was reliable even after  Steele  himself admitted to a British court that  his  dossier wasn ’ t at all reliable . Truth is a defense to libel . Suffice it to say   it was not Steele ’ s defense . Even though there was still no meaningful corroboration of Steele ’ s sources after months of investigation   even though  Steele  had lied to them   the FBI and Justice Department represented again and again   in April and June 2017   that the FISA court could confidently bank on Steele ’ s reliability . By early 2017   however    Steele  was being sued for libel in Britain   among other places   by people accused of misconduct in the dossier . Truth is a defense to libel . Suffice it to say   it was not Steele ’ s defense . In May 2017   as I have detailed ( here )   Steele  was required to respond to interrogatories .  He  emphasized that  his  dossier allegations were “ raw intelligence ” that was “ unverified ” and “ warranted investigation .”  He  further described  his  reports as “ limited intelligence ” that described mere “ indications ” of “ possible ” coordination between Trump ’ s campaign and the Russian government .  He  was not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of what  he  ’ d been told    he  explained ;  he  passed it along because it needed further investigation . Yet   far from reporting Steele ’ s retreat to the FISA court   Grassley and Graham report that the FBI and Justice Department continued vouching for the reliability of his allegations . Advertisement Beyond all that   we now learn through the senators ’ memo   and some follow - up reporting   that two longtime Clinton cronies   Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal   fed their own anti - Trump dossier to  Steele    through a State Department official   Jonathan Winer . In the fall of 2016    Steele    while working on  his  Clinton - funded project   reported this Clinton - crony information to the FBI . Still   the FBI and Justice Department elected not to tell the FISA court that the Clinton campaign was paying for Steele ’ s unverified   unverifiable anti - Trump research . I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct . When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process   I countered that they probably had not even used the  Steele  dossier . If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application   I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court   make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources   and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent .
answer:
no


question:
Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity PATTON OSWALT is Neutral . (SOUNDBITE OF COMEDY SPECIAL  "PATTON OSWALT: ANNIHILATION")
PATTON OSWALT : I'm genuinely - I'm genuinely surprised that you're in such a good mood  especially with what - I'm sure you guys saw what just went down on Twitter like five minutes ago. Did you - you didn't see? No? I'm kidding. Nothing happened. But that's...
 OSWALT : That's the world we're living in right now  basically - is every - oh  (expletive). What did he do? What? Wait. What do you mean?
 OSWALT : I almost feel like I could get out of a mugging using that for the next couple of years...
 OSWALT : Yeah. I mean  I - the first time that I went onstage was at the UCB Theatre on Sunset Boulevard. And I went onstage and immediately started talking about my wife passing away and me being in grief. And I was throwing the audience right into this wall of spikes. But I was throwing myself into a wall of spikes in front of them. And it was - it just - I went on stage and immediately froze up feeling - internally  I had voices saying you're being exploitative. You're being shallow and selfish and solipsistic. And every bad thing that people do to put the - because it didn't feel like the focus should be on me. It felt like - because what my focus was  how is this planet still revolving without Michelle McNamara in it? The whole - life - existence felt like an insult to me to be in the world without her.
 OSWALT : I'll tell you about what I'm going - no  we're totally cool with you singing about your pain  but sing about it. That's why we came here. And also we need help. So  you know  it took me a while to start getting towards that.
GROSS: If you're just joining us my guest is  Patton Oswalt . And  he  has a new comedy special that's in part about  his  wife's death. And  he  manages to find a way to talk about that. And it's called "Annihilation." It's on Netflix. We're going to take a short break. We'll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF COMEDY SPECIAL  "PATTON OSWALT: ANNIHILATION")
 OSWALT : I'm going to spend Mother's Day - we'll be at the airport  and we'll travel. And I'll make that day really fun. And I'll fill that with adventure. And I'll keep her mind off it all day. And we'll be home. And we'll deal with this all again next year  step by step. So now we're at the airport. We're walking up to the security gate. I'm like  I think I pulled this off. Here  sweetie - - here's your ticket. Give your - she loves to hand up her ticket. Here it is. So I go here's your ticket. She gives the gate lady her ticket. I give the gate lady my ticket. She's a very old  sweet  Polish woman.
 OSWALT : I never - I'm still so sad. My father never get over it. It broke him. He died alone. And - but when you are sad  what I tell myself is that  also  there are so many other sad people.
 OSWALT : Oh  God.
 OSWALT : Oh  when I experienced it in real time there was not a comedy routine there. There was - my spine turned to ice and my stomach dropped to my feet. And I did not - you know  all I - I immediately began looking at Alice to make sure that she didn't start crying. But then I realized - because then when she looked up at me  I could see  by the way her face was changing  that I was starting to cry. So I had to then turn back to the gate attendant and go  well  thank you very - I'm doing that - I must have looked horrific. I put on one of those rictus smiles to stop yourself from sobbing  and then took her down the jetway and sat in the seat with her.
GROSS: Were you worried at that moment in the airport and then on the plane that you would be kind of crying  your daughter would be crying  and someone would recognize you and say  oh   Patton Oswalt   love your comedy or so sorry about your wife? You probably didn't really want to deal with anybody at that moment.
 OSWALT : No. I was very worried. But luckily  when you're hunched over on a plane crying  I think people are OK. Unless they are the most desensitized person on the planet  they get the keep-away vibe of  oh  give this guy and his daughter their moment. There were - I remember going to the funeral. I was - I didn't talk about this in the act because there's something - it just felt so - I didn't know how to make this funny - but I was waiting at the hotel with all the relatives. And I was waiting to get in the car. And a couple of people came up and said  oh  my god  "King Of Queens" man. Hey  can we get a selfie? And I didn't want to go - like  be mean to them. I was like  oh  OK. But somewhere there's a selfie of me with two very happy people  and my face is just ashen and looks like - I'm sure they're looking and going oh  something was wrong with him that day. And it was literally the day of my wife's funeral.
 OSWALT : Two people in front of a hotel wanted to get a selfie with me. And I didn't know what to do.
 OSWALT : Why would I put - I can't put that on them. It's not their fault  but I...
answer:

yes