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 Michael Cohen is Neutral . "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."

A: no
****
Q: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Tesla is Neutral . On October 22   Tesla  announced a landmark agreement to manufacture cars in China  building capacity to produce locally and boost sales in the worldâs largest market for electric vehicles.
The agreement is a landmark deal in several respects. China has granted  Tesla  more autonomy than other foreign producers.  Tesla  is the first major foreign automaker to establish local operations without a 50:50 local joint venture partner. This is a key concession as  it  allows  Tesla  tighter control over both  its  intellectual property and vertically-integrated production process.  Tesla  will also benefit by reducing production costs for cars sold in China and  though details were not disclosed  may also receive tax breaks and subsidies akin to those enjoyed by Chinese producers.
 Attracting Tesla  is a symbolic win for China. China has clear ambitions to lead the world in electric vehicles in a broader effort to build a cleaner  environmentally-conscious society. The timing of this announcement during Chinaâs critical 19th Congress reinforces the governmentâs broader objectives.
Yet  a closer look suggests that  Tesla  needs China more than China needs  Tesla . As the chart from IHS Markit: Light Vehicle Forecast below shows  China is an essential market for leading global automakers. China surpassed the United States in 2009 as the largest car market  and car sales in Western markets are forecast to decline  while emerging markets will drive global growth.
With its recent shift in environmental priorities  China is also becoming a major player in electric vehicles. In 2016  China accounted for 45% of all the newly registered electric vehicles worldwide with 336 000 in China vs. 160 000 in the United States. China is also building an EV charging infrastructure that primes the market for a high-end producer such as  Tesla . In 2016  China had a 44% global share of publicly available EV charging outlets  including 82% of fast-charging outlets. Demand for electric vehicles has grown faster in China than in any other global market with the share of EV purchases increasing 3.6x from 2014 to 2016. With EV purchases accounting for just 1.37% of the total car market  the Chinese EV market seems poised for further growth.
Low end EV's dominate Tesla
Despite seemingly favorable market conditions   Tesla  has had little success in China to date. Subsidies have driven electric vehicle demand  with the Chinese government paying up to 50% of the purchase price of domestically-produced EV cars. Lower-end electric vehicles have dominated  and  Tesla   which is subject to 25% import taxes  has largely been priced out of the market. In 2016   Tesla  had just a 3% share of the electric vehicle market in China.
 Tesla âs lackluster performance in China is a striking contrast to other global automakers. As in the West  cars are a status symbol in China  and consumers prefer prestigious global brands. Foreign cars claim a 60% market share in China  with foreign brands claiming seven of the top eight spots for cars sold in 2016. Premium brands have done particularly well in China.
Audi  BMW  Mercedes and Porsche all sell between a quarter to a third of their total global sales in China -- a 10% increase on average in just the past five years. In addition  Volkswagen now sells half of its global volume in China. The experiences of other foreign car brands suggest that  Tesla  should fare well in China if  it  can reduce production costs and vehicle pricing in line with the local market.
It is within this context that  Tesla  needs China more than China needs  Tesla . Chinaâs electric vehicle market will grow with or without  Tesla . But Teslaâs deal with the Shanghai government is both timely and essential. As the electric vehicle market takes off in China   Tesla  must do well in this vital market to maintain global leadership. Building volume in China is required to reduce production costs and pricing in the global as well as local market. Ultimately  as we are seeing in other industries   Tesla  may find that technology talent in China will also prove vital to maintain  its  position as a leading innovator globally.

A: no
****
Q: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Rachel Maddow is Negative . MSNBC star Rachel Maddowâs latest anti-Trump conspiracy theory was so outlandish that even the dependably liberal HuffPost criticized it as "so flimsy that it could be debunked by a quick glance at a map."
On Thursday evening  "The Rachel Maddow Show" opened with a somber 25-minute diatribe that attempted to connect the tragic ambush attack that killed four American soldiers in Niger to the latest version of President Trumpâs proposed travel ban  which included the nation of Chad.  Maddow  essentially claimed that the inclusion of Chad  which recently pulled  its  troops out of Niger  in the revised travel ban resulted in extremist attacks such as the one that left four Americans dead.
The HuffPost  which is so anti-Trump that it refused to even cover him in the political section during the early stages of his campaign  published a story headlined  "What the hell was this  Rachel Maddow  segment?" The MSNBC host proclaimed that Chadâs pullout from Niger "had an immediate effect in emboldening ISIS attacks " but the HuffPost easily shot down her theory.
Colby College Department of Government assistant professor Laura Seay told the HuffPost that "any expert" would have said  Maddow 's conspiracy theory was "crazy" and the pullout of Chadian troops isnât necessarily related to the Trumpâs travel ban.
"Everybody that I know is appalled by this. I would like to think that  Maddow 's researchers are more responsible " Seay told the HuffPost.
"The Rachel Maddow Show" declined to comment to HuffPost but the host addressed the situation on Friday nightâs episode.
"Over the course of the day today  lots of people have been very upset with me for reporting that last night  which is fine. I didnât know you cared. But the upset over my reporting doesnât mean that anything I reported wasnât true "  Maddow  said. "Everything I reported was true."
 Maddow  continued: "Now  this doesnât mean that Chad withdrawing their troops was necessarily the cause of what happened to those U.S. troops who were ambushed. That ambush is being described by the Pentagon as a shock."
The HuffPostâs Willa Frej wrote that  Maddow  built "myths" using unrelated or unreliable information and "reduced the story so thoroughly that it lost any semblance of the larger truth."
 Maddow  has seen increased viewership as the triggered left tunes in to watch  her  condemn Trump on a nightly basis  butit seems the MSNBC host this time went too far for one of the most liberal publications in America.

A:
yes
****