I had a few things to tell you. Legal had a few things to BLEEP! Watch:

Welker: "Do you agree with the president's ban [of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico]?" Barrasso: "We all respect and value the freedom of the press, it's in the Constitution. The president, remember, in his first term, he was banned from Twitter. He was banned from Facebook…The press has an obligation to report fairly, and the president doesn't see it happening that way."

There are real reasons closing down the Speaker’s lobby will tangibly make lawmakers less accountable. Just from a purely functional standpoint, it’ll be much easier for lawmakers to lose reporters by going through the Speaker’s lobby. (Currently, we can watch what door they use and run after them.) This would make it virtually impossible to catch a member who doesn’t want to talk. (They just exit through the speakers lobby and leave in the opposite direction of the reporter chasing them.) Another major problem: If you shut down the Speaker’s lobby, there will be fewer places to put reporters — meaning more reporters in hallways and less opportunities to talk to members. It’s just gonna mean lawmakers will deal with more shouted questions and more clogged hallways — exactly the kind of journalism that’s not conducive to real dialogue. There’s also the point that, you know, our tax dollars pay for these spaces, and the press represents the public. We’re there to ask questions that the public can’t get answered. This would make that harder. Finally, to address your ridiculous argument. There are plenty of private spaces where lawmakers can hang out without us. The House floor. Cloakrooms. Committee rooms. The balconies. Their offices. We don’t need to shut down a vital space and make lawmakers less accessible under the guise of fostering bipartisanship. You citing the belief of lawmakers that the closing down the Speaker’s lobby will make things better is like citing a cigarette company’s health data on smoking. Get real.