The 3rd and final presidential debate is now over; although unlike the previous two, the questions arising from it have surfaced the following. There were two things of importance that came out of the debate, which should be addressed:
1. Moderator Chris Wallace threw an obvious set-up question at Trump at the end, and;
2. Trump has alleged that Wallace fed Clinton the questions in advance.
Would Chris Wallace have an interest in doing such unethical things? Let us first take a look at Wallace himself. He earns $1.5 million annually from Fox News, a subsidiary of News Corp---the sixth largest media donor to the Clinton Foundation. News Corp is also heavily invested in and with the Wahhabi regimes running Saudi Arabia and the UAE; also big donors to the Clintons. Wallace is a registered Democrat, and publically boasts that his party affiliation 'gives him access.' He capitalizes on the fact that he is the son of legendary journalist Mike Wallace. Few know, however, that Chris Wallace's parents divorced when he was an infant; and his mother took up with Mike Wallace's boss, CBS executive Bill Leonard. By his own admission, Leonard's rather dubious ethics shaped young Chris' career, and he didn't even know Mike Wallace until he was 14.
So let us not pretend that this 'debate' was any more objective than the others. Less than five minutes after the debate ended, the entire Corporate Media---as if on cue, pounced on the final question about accepting the election results. Given the Clinton Machine's well-documented history of cheating one logically has to question why this particular issue is of such grave concern to them.
Trump gave no evidence that Clinton was fed the questions, but in light of the media coordination attacking Trump over a set-up question, it's not outside the realm of possibility that was Trump says is so. Polls are showing that a sizable plurality of Americans believe that the elections are not going to be fairly counted. Given the lack of voter transparency here, no independent monitoring of election, and the ease and lack of enforcement for voter fraud---very likely it will not be fair.
We so far have not endorsed any candidate, but it is becoming increasingly clear that Hilary Clinton is completely disqualified to hold the presidential office. The extensive corruption that characterizes the entire Clinton Machine shows complete contempt for due process. Trump, Johnson, or Stein would be compelled to hold their policies up to the scrutiny of Congress, the States, and the Supreme Court. Clinton has proven that she will never hesitate to employ any means that bypasses either the written or moral law.
We are told to vote our consciences, but it would seem at this point that there is no moral justification for voting Clinton this November. To do so would be to validate and reward crime and injustice. Voters on the political Left have the option of a protest vote for Stein or a write-in vote for Sanders---or more especially supporting Liberals for Congress. For Conservatives, Trump or Johnson is available, and they too should pay attention to the local and congressional races. That is voting one's conscience in this election.