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 Alan Dershowitz is Negative . On Tuesdayâs broadcast of the Fox News Channelâs âAmericaâs Newsroom â Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz stated Special Counsel Robert Mueller is âvery zealous.â He later added that Mueller wonât be content until he gets to President Trump or those âvery closeâ to him and this is the danger of special prosecutors.
 Dershowitz  said that both parties are guilty of arguing that everything they disagree with is criminal and this behavior started with Republicans during the campaign with Hillary Clinton and then continued by Democrats.
 Dershowitz  then recalled  his  experience with Mueller.  He  stated that  he  talked to Mueller about prosecutorial and FBI misconduct and Mueller stated âItâs a non-starter to talk to me about FBI misconduct or prosecutorial misconduct. Itâs a non-starter.  He  doesnât want to hear about that.  He  is in the business of protecting the FBI  protecting prosecutors  at all costs. I donât suggest  he âs unethical  but  he âs very zealous.â
 He  added that this makes Mueller âeffective at  his  job  but the job of a prosecutor is to do justice  not to get as many notches on his belt as possible.â
 Dershowitz  further stated Mueller is ânot going to be satisfied until  he  gets to the president  or people very close to  him . Thatâs the danger of a special prosecutor.â
 Dershowitz  also stated the tactic of finding someone to prosecute in order to get them to talk is âdangerousâ because people will âcomposeâ and make things up to get a better deal.  He  continued  âLook  if an ordinary person walked over to somebody and said  âUnless you give up your rights  Iâm going to have you criminally prosecuted â weâd call that extortion. But itâs allowed by prosecutors. And Iâve been railing against this for 53 years. now  Republicans agree with me. â¦ Which side are you on has become so important.â
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity George W Bush is Neutral . But Bush 's work has also garnered praise from media outlets like the The Washington Post and personalities like Kanye West . 
George W. Bush 's forthcoming book will be unlike any book he -- or any other US president -- has ever written . 
In addition to an introduction by Bush and forewords by former first lady Laura Bush and by Gen. Peter Pace , former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , the book will also have stories written by Bush about each of his subjects . 
Bush 's latest hobby has been "the most interesting thing about his post-Presidential public life ," wrote The New Yorker . 
Bush "paints in a similar fashion to the way he talks -- affecting a folksy , homespun , plain-speaking tone , with just enough ham-fisted strangeness and bungling missteps to keep things interesting ," the Telegraph wrote in 2014 . 
"This is a book about the men and women who have been tremendous national assets in the Armed Forces -- and who continue to be vital to the future success of our country ," Bush writes in the introduction . 
His office said Bush is donating all net author proceeds to the George W. Bush Presidential Center and its Military Service Initiative , which helps post-Sept . 
"His hope in sharing these portraits is that other veterans and everyday Americans are inspired to overcome any obstacles they may face and live life to the fullest ," Bush 's office said in a statement . 
"As part of a continuing effort to paint over his legacy as a war criminal and the worst US president ever , George W. Bush will soon publish an art book ," writes art and culture site Hyperallergic . 
New York Magazine art critic Jerry Saltz has called Bush 's art "sentimental ," "border -LSB- ing -RSB- on the visionary , the absurd , the perverse , the frat boy ." 
He also cited Peter Plagens who called the new hobby "a clever political maneuver by the forces of the Right -LRB- a.k.a. the Republican Party -RRB- to soften the Bush name so that Jeb can make a presidential run ."
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity J.D is Negative . ON SEPTEMBER 11th  a 17-year-old girl was apprehended as she illegally crossed into America from Mexico. Now nearly 16 weeks pregnant  the girlâknown as Jane Doe or  J.D.  to protect her privacyâwould like to have an abortion. But her custodian at a detention centre in Brownsville  Texasâthe Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)âis refusing her request. The government will "protect the well-being of this minor and all children and their babies in our facilitiesâ  an HHS spokesman explained. â[W]e will defend human dignity for all in our care." On October 18th  a federal judge instructed the federal government to grant  J.D. âs wish  but two days later  a three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit froze that order until October 31st by a 2-1 vote. If by that date the authorities have not found a sponsor âcapable of providing for the childâs physical and mental well-beingâ who could help her procure an abortion  the court held   J.D.  may return to court to plead her case anew.
Meanwhile  via her lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)   J.D.  is asking the appeals court to reconsider her case âen bancââwith the full complement of judges. Time is of the essence: while bureaucrats and judges wrangle over her fate   J.D.âs  pregnancy rolls toward 20 weeks  the point at which abortion is no longer available in Texas. The ACLU told the appeals court on October 22nd that its panel decision âviolates decades of well-settled Supreme Court precedentâ barring the government from imposing âan undue burden onâor  as in this extraordinary case  completely block[ing]âa womanâs ability to obtain an abortionâ.
The holding pattern for  J.D.  began nearly a month ago. âAll the while  this young  isolated woman remains pregnant against her will  causing her irreparable harmâ  the ACLU wrote. Every day   J.D.  faces a âsevere strain...both physically and emotionallyâ and abortion becomes a riskier  more fraught procedure. The young womanâs lawyers ask the federal government to simply get out of the way: âHer court-appointed representatives or the shelter personnel stand ready to transport her; the health centre stands ready to provide the care; and private funds have been provided to pay for the procedureâ. In sum  "[a]ll defendants must do is to step aside and stop blocking the doorâ.
The ACLU brief includes a few lines from a stinging opinion penned by Judge Patricia Millett  the dissenter in the appeals court ruling on October 20th. The governmentâs refusal to grant the young womanâs wish âsacrificesâ her âconstitutional liberty  autonomy and personal dignity for no justifiable governmental reasonâ  Judge Millett wrote. Its decision represents âan astonishing power grabâ  ignoring the fact that âthis child fled here all alone in a desperate effort to avoid severe abuseâ and embarked on âa life-imperiling trek for hundreds  perhaps thousands  of milesâ.  J.D.  and other â[u]naccompanied minor migrants are among the most vulnerable persons in the worldâ.
In its response to the young womanâs request for a court-wide re-hearing  the Department of Justice (DoJ) raised three curious pointsânone of which  interestingly  denies that  J.D.  has a right to an abortion. First  the DoJ explained that if  J.D.  were to find a sponsor  she  would be able to seek an abortion under  his  or  her  care and the complaint against the government would dissolve. But as the ACLU observed  âthe notion that an appropriate sponsor for  J.D.  could be identified  properly vetted  and approved in an eleven day time frame is entirely unrealisticâ. Second  the DoJ argued that  J.D.  brought  her  predicament on  herself . âAny alleged âobstacleâ to Ms Doeâs ability to obtain an abortion is by her own choiceâ  the brief asserts. She chose to flee oppression in her home country and enter America illegally  so she is author of her own dilemma. The obstacle to her abortion is self-imposed.  J.D.  can decide to remove that obstacle âat any time by filing a request for voluntary departureâ.
This is a glaring insult to the young woman. Start with the implication that  J.D.  would enjoy the autonomy to have an abortion if only she were to give up on America and return to her home country: a choice between forced motherhood and a bus-ride back to the place she took great pains to escape. Actually  it is worse: in Mexico  where  J.D.  seems to be from (this information is sealed)  she would not be able to secure a legal abortion at all. Self-deportation  then  would almost certainly be a lose-lose scenario.
The most jarring feature of the governmentâs argument comes near the end of its brief when it advances a novel theory of government âcomplicityâ in acts it finds reprehensible. Why does the Office of Refugee Resettlement refuse to release  J.D.  to court-appointed representatives to travel to a nearby abortion clinic? Because that would âentail facilitating an abortionâ  the DoJ brief reads. Even if HHS does not drive  J.D.  to the clinic or pay for the procedure  approving such a release âwould still require that HHS or its contractor devote time and staff towards maintaining appropriate custody over Ms Doe during her absenceâ and necessitate âexpend[ing] resources to monitorâ her health. Permitting  J.D.  to exercise her constitutional right to end her pregnancy would ârequire the federal government to be complicit in her abortion  which the government has a significant and legitimate interest in refusing to doâ.
[EX A]:
no