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 Clinton is Positive . Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said a meeting revealed in the House Intelligence Committee memo released Friday shows that  the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee  likely knew about the dossier  despite  their  denials.
The memo revealed that the law firm representing the  Clinton  campaign and the DNC  Perkins Coie  hosted âat least oneâ meeting in Washington  D.C. in 2016 with dossier author Christopher Steele  Fusion GPS  and media outlets  in which the dossierâs research was discussed.
According to Meadows  Perkins Coie could likely not have hosted the meeting without getting its clientâs permission â in this case  the  Clinton  campaign and the DNC â due to attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege would give the  Clinton  campaign and the DNC control over what Perkins Coie could share with other parties â especially the media.
âI canât imagine that a law firm would set that up and bring in the media without knowledge of some individual within the DNC or the  Hillary Clinton  campaign directing them to do so  because it would break an attorney-client privilege to bring in the media and allow that to be exposed without that happening â Meadows said during a conference call with reporters about the memo on Friday.
The  Clinton  campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million from June 2015  and the DNC paid Fusion GPS $3.65 million beginning in November 2015  according to the Washington Post. Obama for America also paid Fusion GPS $972 000 since April 2016  according to The Federalist.
Even after that   Clinton    her  top campaign and DNC officials denied knowing they were paying for the dossier.  Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook  told CNN that  he  was unaware that the  Clinton  campaign was paying Fusion GPS.
âI didnât know that we were paying the contractor that created that document â  Mook  told CNN on November 3  2017.
 Former Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta  also told Senate Intelligence Committee investigators last year that  he  did not know they were paying for the dossier  according to CNN.

Answer: yes


Question: 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.

Answer: no


Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Jessica Diggins is Negative . PYEONGCHANG  South Korea -- As she headed up the steepest  most grueling hill of her life in third place   Jessica Diggins  thought to  herself  just winning an Olympic medal was no longer good enough.  She  wanted more.  She  wanted gold.
 Diggins  dug deep  remembering all the years of training  she  had put in  and of all  her  teammates waiting for  her  at the finish line to bring home the United States' first medal ever in women's cross-country skiing - and then  she  let loose.
 Diggins  reached the peak of the hill in third place but sped past Norway's Maiken Caspersen Falla on the last big  winding downhill.  She  rounded the final corner and took dead aim at Sweden's Stina Nilsson on the final 100-meter homestretch.
The crowd in the grandstand was on its feet sensing history  and at that moment  Diggins  said  she  felt "unstoppable."
"Around that final corner I felt like I was uncoiling a spring and letting it go "  Diggins  said. "Giving it everything I had  digging as deep as I could and putting it all out there. When your team is counting on you  you don't give up ever."
 Diggins  certainly didn't give up.
 She  blew by Nilsson in a blur to capture gold in the team sprint  bringing the United States its first gold medal ever in cross-country skiing.
As she crossed the line she collapsed in exhaustion as teammate Kikkan Randall tackled her in the snow. Randall lay on top of a crying  Diggins  shaking her ski jacket in pure excitement and utter joy.
"That feeling of being able to cross the line and have Kikkan tackle me was the coolest thing ever "  Diggins  said.
 Diggins  and Randall ended that 42-year drought and surely gave a huge boost to all of the young cross-country skiers back home in the United States.
 Diggins'  father  Clay  said he had a feeling this was the day the drought would end.  Diggins  had three top-six finishes at the Olympics and Randall was skiing well  too. And  he  said the entire American women's cross-country team came out to practice on Tuesday morning with  Diggins  and Randall.
"There were only two of them skiing today  but the entire team came out to support them - practicing tags and everything  " Clay Diggins  said. "That to me is pretty cool. They wanted to be there for them  for the team. And I think Kikkan and Jess felt that (support) on the course."
 Diggins  screamed as  she  crossed the finish line  setting off a huge celebration for the red  white and blue.  Her  American teammates were jumping and hugging each other along the fence line that guarded the track.
"Our whole team had that belief we could win and everyone was there screaming  " Diggins  said of the final sprint. "I don't know if you have that many teams where everyone is out there on the fence yelling their faces off. I just think we had a lot of support behind of us."

Answer:
no