> would probably have an easier time securing Hold up, that's starting to conflate two very different ideas of what's going on: 1. "We cannot tolerate any out

> would probably have an easier time securing Hold up, that's starting to conflate two very different ideas of what's going on: 1. "We cannot tolerate any outside visitors because it could possibly give them an opportunity to commit espionage and other serious federal crimes. 2. "We cannot tolerate specific vetted reporters that haven't promised us control over what they write and how they write it." We can tell this isn't a (#1) concern over actual security. If it were, this (#2) "deal" would never be offered at all. This is about controlling messages and opinions, rather than securing specific facts.