I don't know this person well.

But I do know the National Security Council.

This much public debate over a director-level NSC staffer is not only absurd, it sets a precedent that will make it increasingly difficult for the NSC to have any actual policy deliberations. https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1381314745865805825

Everyone at the NSC, including the National Security Advisor, is a staffer. They staff (1) the president and (2) the process by which national security and foreign policy decisions are made. The perception of one director-level hire *deciding* major policy is not accurate.

So personnel is policy, but not necessarily vice versa.

Ironically, having a public fight over a *potential* staffer makes it less likely that robust policy will be made quickly because there isn't somebody there to push *all* the options through the NSC process.

Now thinking about this.

The thing that is notable about this is that the NSC found enough direct budget to hire a director-level staffer. Most directors are detailed in for 1-2 years from other agencies. NSC has comparatively no budget of its own to hire civil servants.

Most of all, it's Sunday and nice outside.

Thanks for coming to talk about national security bureaucracy and process (we should do this more often!), but I am going to go back to Sunday errands and enjoyment.