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 Trumper is Negative . Thatâs not too far of a fling  actually. One really bad move could do it  but  Trump  has insulated  himself  with people far more competent and worthy of  their  positions. To date   they âre keeping  him  from stepping over the edge.
I never thought he could do the job. Heâs made some solid moves in his first year in office  but I actually give the credit to those around him. As I said from the beginning  it was the Cabinet that would do the actual work  and much like his business dealings   Trump  would be the Ronald McDonald of politics.  He âs the face of the presidency  but the actual work is being done by somebody else.
Wolff leans to some old rumors in the book about Trumpâs campaign plans. Namely   he  never intended to be president.  He  was going to clean up by being the almost president  build up a ready-made audience  and launch a new TV network venture  TrumpTV.
Because nobody thought  he  would win  nobody prepared for the job. In fact  while  Trump  bragged openly to  his  glassy-eyed followers that  he âd finance  his  own campaign and be beholden to none (How many times did I hear a Trumper say  â He  canât be bought!â)   he  put very little of  his  own money into the campaign.  He  took donations  like every other candidate  but to this day  not a single  Trump  supporter can be convinced of that.
 He  didnât run  his  campaign like somebody that wanted to win. It was a show to  him .  He  was worthless in debates  because  he  obviously didnât understand the questions being asked of  him   but  his  base would flood online polls and declare  him  the winner  even before the debates were over (which tells me they didnât understand the questions  either  nor did they care).
 Trump  struck out at Wolff on Friday night (on Twitter  of course)  slamming  him  as a âloserâ and calling  his  book âboring and untruthful.â
Ok. Wolff  however  is thanking  Trump  for helping  him  sell books  which  in turn  is opening eyes.

Answer: no


Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity David Clarke is Positive . It's not enough to tell people that if they see something  they should say something  as often  people do not know what to watch for and report   former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke  said Tuesday.
"There are a lot of people  350 million people in the United States  " Clarke  told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program  while commenting about the deadly Las Vegas concert shooting. "They are not all known to law enforcement  so where I would start is doing a better job of engaging the public to help us out."
 Clarke  described Paddock Tuesday at the "needle in the haystack reference that you hear in homeland security enterprise and environment  and at times like this  the call to report troubled people starts over.
"We don't tell people specifically  you know  what to do  what to look for " said  Clarke . "I have been in law enforcement for nearly 40 years. I'm suspicious about everything."
 Clarke  said  he  has no doubt that as the investigation unfolds  there will be details that are now obvious in hindsight.
"We [should] do a better job of engaging the public  say here are the sort of things you need to look for and an ongoing campaign to do that " said  Clarke . "We spent a lot of money to see something  say something campaign. I wonder what the results are."
News broke Monday that Paddock's father had been on the FBI's Most Wanted List back in the 1960s  and  Clarke  said it will take a behavioral scientist to unwrap the shooter and  his  motives.
"We saw it in Orlando " said  Clarke . "We saw it in San Bernardino. We saw it a Fort Hood. After a while you look and what you hear over and over again is like some of the people's closest neighbors and friends saying 'hey  he seemed like a normal guy to me.' Oftentimes not."
 Clarke  said  he  expects Paddock's girlfriend  Marilou Danley  who was out of the country at the time of the shooting  will shed some light on his motives.

Answer: yes


Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Swearingen is Neutral . Trotter had been missing since December 8  1998  when she disappeared from the Montgomery County community college where she was a first-year student. Three days later  on unrelated warrants  the police arrested  Larry Swearingen  a 27-year-old unemployed electrician with a young family and a history of run-ins with the law . Police suspected  Swearingen  was Trotterâs killer. He had been seen talking with Trotter two days before her disappearance outside a local store near Lake Conroe  which abuts the national forest. On the day she went missing  he was seen chatting with her in the college library.
After the body was found some three weeks later   Swearingen  was charged with Trotterâs kidnapping  sexual assault  and murder. There was little in the way of hard evidence to back up the charges. In addition to the two times he was seen talking to Trotter prior to her disappearance  the state pointed to a lie he told  claiming he didnât know who Trotter was  and to a letter he wrote while jailed in which he pretended to be someone else and claimed knowledge about the murder that officials said only the killer would know.
In 2000   Swearingen  was tried for the crime and sentenced to death.
Nearly 20 years after the murder   he  maintains  his  innocence  and for more than a decade  he  has been fighting to clear  his  name  in part by repeatedly requesting that key crime scene evidence be subjected to DNA testing. While the stateâs case against  him  was built on circumstantial evidence  there was also a trove of physical evidence that prosecutors seemingly either ignored or dismissed.
The state insisted that the length of hose matched a second piece of hosiery retrieved from the trailer home  Swearingen  shared with  his  wife  Terry. But the hose from the trailer wasnât found until weeks after Trotterâs body was discovered  after police had conducted two exhaustive searches of the Swearingen property. And instead of submitting either piece for DNA testing  the state had a forensic analyst line them up side by side to determine visually whether they came from the same pair of hosiery â the kind of subjective forensic pattern analysis that raises serious concerns about scientific validity and reliability. At  Swearingen âs trial  the analyst testified that the two lengths of hose matched âto the exclusion of all other pantyhose.â
According to court filings  evidence that was tested pointed away from  Swearingen . DNA collected from a cigarette butt found in  Swearingen âs trailer that prosecutors claimed belonged to Trotter excluded her as the donor. And DNA developed from blood found in fingernail scrapings taken from Trotterâs body at autopsy excluded  Swearingen   revealing instead the profile of an unknown male.
To date  Texasâs highest criminal court  the Court of Criminal Appeals  has sided with the state  concluding that the âmountainâ of circumstantial evidence against  Swearingen  outweighs the potentially probative value of DNA evidence. The court has denied his request for testing four times â highlighting a confounding  if not obstructionist  approach to requests made for post-conviction DNA testing under state law.
In  Swearingen âs case and others  the court has construed the right to testing in a way that severely narrows eligibility â an approach that  Swearingen âs lawyers say threatens to make the once powerful law a dead letter  potentially closing access to testing in all cases where there is a claim of wrongful conviction.
 Swearingen  is scheduled for execution on November 16.
Death row inmate  Larry Swearingen  during an interview at the Polunsky Unit in Longview  Texas. Photo: Jacob Villanueva/The Texas Tribune
When  Swearingen  first sought DNA testing in 2004  the denial was straightforward â the CCA refused to consider the request because  Swearingen âs lawyers had missed a filing deadline.
In its 2010 ruling  the court noted that the statute only allowed testing of evidence âcontaining biological materialâ and concluded that  Swearingen  could not demonstrate that the items  he  wanted to test â the pantyhose  additional fingernail scrapings  and clothing â were actually âprovenâ to contain such material.
âThis court has held that a mere assertion or a general claim that existence of biological material is probable will fail to satisfy the appellantâs burdenâ under the statute  the court wrote. It also faulted  Swearingen  for suggesting that any unknown profile developed from DNA testing should be run against state and federal databases  a provision that didnât appear in the statute.
 Swearingen  filed for testing again in 2013. Newly elected District Judge Kelly Case approved his request  which was accompanied by an affidavit from a DNA analyst who said the evidence would likely contain biological materials.
For example  while the definition of biological material fit for testing included skin cells   Swearingen  still couldnât confirm that skin cells existed on the pantyhose used to strangle Trotter or on the clothes  she  was wearing. And having a DNA analyst say such materials would likely be there was not enough. âWe have explicitly held that appellee must prove biological material exists and not that it is merely probable â the court wrote.
But in order to definitively prove that microscopic evidence exists  you have to test for it  notes Bryce Benjet  a staff attorney with the Innocence Project and one of  the lawyers handling Swearingenâs case . It was a frustrating conclusion  if not an impossible standard to meet.

Answer:
yes