I don& #39;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">https://twitter.com/NatashaBe...

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& #39;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& #39;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.