TASK DEFINITION: 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].
PROBLEM: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Larry Wooten is Neutral . Navarroâs decision apparently was a reflection on federal officials. It follows release of a memo by  BLM investigator Larry Wooten  that described âa widespread pattern of bad judgment  lack of discipline  incredible bias  unprofessionalism and misconduct  as well as likely policy  ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staffâ in the BLMâs Office of Law Enforcement and Security.
 Wooten  wrote that  he  had seen âexcessive force â described officers grinding Bundyâs son Daveâs face in gravel and opined that federal officials were intent on commanding âthe most intrusive  oppressive  large scale and militaristic cattle impound possible.â
In an apparently partisan reference that used a term Hillary Clinton designated for some of Trumpâs supporters   Wooten  wrote that a federal prosecutor said  letâs get these âshall we say Deplorables.â
 Wooten  also wrote that the Bundy case âclosely mirrorsâ the circumstances behind the trial of former Sen. Ted Stevens  R-Alaska.
 Wooten  is no fan of Cliven Bundy who   he  wrote  instead of âproperly using the court system or other avenues to properly address  his  grievances   he  chose an illegal  uncivilized and dangerous strategy in which a tragedy was narrowly and thankfully avoided.â

SOLUTION: yes

PROBLEM: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Megan Rapinoe is Neutral . Sep 19  2017: USA midfielder Megan Rapinoe (15) against New Zealand at Nippert Stadium  University of Cincinnati. (Photo: Aaron Doster/USA TODAY Sports)
Just where the hell does U.S. women’s national team forward  Megan Rapinoe  get off? Why is it that she and other female professional athletes can’t just go play ball without bringing all this other stuff into it?
“Honestly  I feel like we are a walking protest ”  Rapinoe  said. “The fact that we’re women professional athletes says that in and of itself. We’ve been feeling the inequality; we’ve been struggling with pay equality or whatever it is  or sexism in sports.
Let’s leave the sarcasm of my second paragraph aside and get serious:  Rapinoe  is saying  her  very existence is a protest.  She  and other female professional athletes are bucking societal expectation the moment they get out of bed to fix a cup of coffee.
Can you imagine the pressure and frustration that must bring? Who could blame  Rapinoe  or anyone else if they were to go along to get along by accepting the status quo? If they were afraid to draw any additional attention to themselves or speak out on controversial topics?
 Rapinoe  made headlines this week by saying FIFA didn’t care about women’s soccer  after the organization nominated a little-known college player as  its  top international player of the year.
“The award just doesn’t hold a lot of weight when you’ve got someone on the list I’ve never heard of ”  Rapinoe  told the BBC.
 Rapinoe  was also at the front of a push for a pay raise for the women’s national team.
 She  said the conversation got moved into a direct comparison with the men’s team  but “for us the conversation is always about getting paid what we feel like we’re worth and getting paid as the sport grows and as we help grow the sport – I mean we’ve seen tremendous growth in the sport the last four or five years.”
The push resulted in a new contract   Rapinoe  said  but  she  and four teammates took the matter to federal court. They said they earn about a quarter of what their male counterparts earn  even though the women’s team  which in 2015 won the World Cup for the third time  brought in about $20 million more in revenue than the men  according to a U.S. Soccer financial report.
As for the anthem   Rapinoe  took a knee a year ago  before a National Women’s Soccer League match in solidarity with Colin Kaepernick  who was seeking to bring attention to systemic racism and overly aggressive police tactics in minority communities.
If a group is protesting for its rights   Rapinoe  said  “you need people from every slice of society to kind of get behind that  and at the end of the day we’re all the same  we’re all just human beings; in this country we’re all Americans and everybody deserves the right to you know have life liberty and all the things that we love to hang our hat on as Americans.

SOLUTION: no

PROBLEM: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Schaffer Wice is Positive . 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.

SOLUTION:
yes