The Higgins Memo should have been front page news across America, yet it was quietly swept under the rug and ignored by the majority of major media outlets. It detailed attempts by those within government to derail a presidential campaign and the efforts after they failed. After speaking with the author, Rich Higgins, regarding the Iran situation in an exclusive interview, Liberty Nation decided to delve deeper into the contents and implications of this document.
You can read the Higgins Memo in full on LN.
Liberty Nation: Could you give us an outline of what the memo actually contained?
Richard Higgins: What you see in the memo is the culmination of discussions I’ve been having with several individuals both within and outside of the administration, most of whom had participated directly or indirectly with the Trump campaign. And there was, I thought, a failure to appreciate the nature of the president’s election, and his de facto creation of this outside party. I always told people that he won the election at the first Republican debate where he basically refused to put his hand up and say he would support the Republican candidate.
At that point, he established himself as not part of the current two-party political system. I think where a lot of the analysis, even to this day, falls short of understanding that how the establishment political power structure views the president, including their international allies, was driving a lot of the early poor decision making in terms of some of personnel choices that were being made and other things.
I basically offered the memo with the thinking that the president needs to be made aware of this, that there are so many bad guys inside the system now. But I don’t know if I can give him this information without having it off-ramped and basically given the pocket veto by one of my superiors inside of the National Security Council apparatus, which is why it ended up going this outside pathway. I understood political warfare; I had run the Irregular Warfare Office at the Pentagon. I’d been working in this area for 20 something years. I underestimated the scope of what we were actually up against. You see in the memo structure itself some of what we thought was going on and most of it turns out to be true, but in fact the reality of the situation appears to have been far worse than we even lay out in the memo itself.
LN: So, this covered a range of things, from a deep state, Islamists, all working together with the radical left. It seems almost conclusive that at some point you were going to be removed from your position. How long did it take before you were asked to step down?
RH: I was working on the memo probably in April and May with several colleagues, and it went through various iterations; we’d put stuff in, take stuff out. We were basically monitoring what we could see just in the open source, just through watching the news and monitoring the 24-hour news cycle, that was a big part of it. But also what we saw taking place within the system, where we recognized anomalies inside the way the national security decision-making bureaucracy normally works. In April and May 2017, we wrote it and passed it to several folks affiliated with the campaign, and allegedly it made its way to the president. I don’t know that for a fact. I didn’t see him with it, but I believe it’s probably true.
Once the president read it, I’m told he read it on the trip to the G7 or G8 in Hamburg, or on the way back. That’s when he brought it up, “Hey, somebody on the NSC [National Security Council] had a hand in helping write this, you know, find out who it is”. And of course, [former National Security Adviser, Herbert] McMaster wasn’t too fond of the memo because the memo calls out the bureaucrats. The fact of the matter is that, whether or not you’re right, it doesn’t really matter. The truth has a way of just causing things to happen.
You have to be prepared for that, man. I knew in passing the memo in the way I was passing it, that I was taking some chance … there were two real risks associated with it. Number one is, is it possible that I’m overstating the situation? I thought I was understating it and moderating my opinions of things, but I had to provide things like the last alliance with the Islamists in order to provide a contextual background for readers who may not be familiar with it. That’s where you get a lot of the background information.
I hate some of the terms that are in here. I hate the term deep state. I hate the term red-green axis. I’m a doctrinal, facts only, intel, counter-terrorism type person. I really don’t want all the political speak, and it’s difficult to put this information out to policymakers today because so much of it has been made radioactive and difficult to discuss in public forums.
In part two, Higgins discusses the declassification of Presidential Study Directive 11 and his dislike for the term “deep state.”
At Liberty Nation, we love to hear from our readers. Comment and join the conversation!