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 Input:
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 Output:
no


Ex Input:
Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Davis is Negative . Davis challenged his conviction and sentence on the grounds that his confession was illegally obtained and that his trial in San Clara County  Calif.  was tainted by pretrial publicity.
 Marc Klaas  Polly's father  expressed frustration Monday that Davis' appeals were taking too long. He noted that Polly would be 28 now had she lived.
Davis' appeals were taking too long. He noted that Polly would be 28 now had she lived.
 "I have no doubt that this guy is going to outlive me " said Klaas  60.
 Davis has a constitutional challenge pending before the state high court. Once that is resolved  he can challenge his conviction and sentence in federal court.
 Assistant California Attorney General Ronald Matthias  who successfully opposed DavisDavis' appeal  said federal appeals could take 10 to 15 years.
 In writing for the court  Justice Joyce L. Kennard recounted DavisDavis' reaction when a jury found him guilty of Polly's murder.
 Davis "turned toward the television cameras in the courtroom and made an obscene gesture with both hands by extending his middle fingers " Kennard wrote. "He then winked his eye and blew a kiss."
 Davis kidnapped Polly from her bedroom at her home in Petaluma  Calif.  where she was having a slumber party with two other girls. Her mother and a younger half-sister were sleeping down the hall.
 Davis had a long and violent criminal record  and his history helped fuel voter support for a 1994 three-strikes initiative in California that required sentences of 25 years to life in prison for a third felony after two violent felonies.

Ex Output:
no


Ex Input:
Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Clarence Thomas is Negative . Jill Abramsonâs hit piece on  Clarence Thomas  remarkably relies on David Brock and Fred Cooke  although Brock himself rebutted Abramsonâs own work on  Thomas  and has highlighted Cooke as a problematic source. Here are the facts.
Mayer and Abramson have made these accusations on the basis of accounts from sources who tell me they were either flatly misquoted or misrepresented  or refused to confirm information attributed to them. The list of these people who say they were misquoted includes the only woman whose allegations against  Thomas  have not been previously reported â and refuted â in prior books or articles. In addition to relying on fake evidence  doctored quotes  and unsupported hearsay  the book is brimming with anonymous and discreditable sources. Key figures were never interviewed. Where evidence does not fit the authorsâ point  it is ignored entirely. And a whole array of alleged facts â small and large â are simply wrong.
The case that  Thomas  exhibited an interest in pornography after his student days rests on the accounts of two people: Barry Maddox  the proprietor of a Washington  D.C. video rental shop  and Frederick Cooke  a Washington attorney. [A third source  Kaye Savage  who claims to have information linking  Thomas  to Playboy magazine  is discussed later in this review.] Mayer and Abramson write:
âBut the interest in pornography that  Thomas  first exhibited at Yale apparently continued through the early 1980s  when Long Dong Silver was a well-known figure among fans of X-rated movies. According to Barry Maddox  the proprietor of Graffiti  a video rental and equipment store just off Dupont Circle  a few blocks from the EEOCâs headquarters  the store began to rent pornographic videos in 1982. Not long afterward  Maddox recalled   Thomas  became a regular customer.â
There are several problems with this account  including that the EEOCâs headquarters at 18th and L Streets NW  a few blocks south of the Dupont Circle area  did not open until August 1989.  Thomas  worked at that location for only a matter of months  and during the entire time  he  was in the middle of a brutal confirmation fight for a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals  which  he  won in March 1990. In the early 1980s  when Maddox claims  Thomas  was a regular customer  the EEOCâs headquarters were at Columbia Plaza at 24th and E Streets NW â nowhere near Dupont Circle or Graffiti.
âIt was also in Graffiti that Frederick Douglass Cooke  Jr.  a Washington attorney and the former D.C. corporation counsel  saw  Thomas  at the cashierâs counter in the late 1980s with another âfreak-of-natureâ kind of film. Cooke thought it pretty amusing to run into the chairman of the EEOC  whom he had met once or twice on a social basis  standing with a triple X videotape entitled The Adventures of Bad Mama Jama.â
These sentences appear on page 107 of the book  where  though he is not quoted directly  it appears as if Cooke himself has told the authors what he supposedly saw. There is no note indicating otherwise. Not until flipping to a note for page 330  where efforts by  Thomas  opponents to extract damaging information from Cooke are discussed  do we learn  âReached on two separate occasions  Cooke would neither confirm nor deny the account.â[5.]

Ex Output:

no