The Atlantic published what the vice president, the secretary of defense, the CIA director, the director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and others sent to them. In short, it exercised a right the Constitution long ago enshrined, freedom of the press.

As often as the mainstream media is the rightful target of criticism, this is not one of those times. The person who committed the original sin appears to be National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz.

Waltz allegedly added Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to the Signal chat group identified as "Houthi PC small group." The chat included specifics about the U.S. air strikes on Houthi leaders in Yemen on March 15th, before they happened.

When they did happen at the time the chat said they would, Goldberg — who was originally inclined to dismiss the chats — suddenly knew they were legitimate. He then made the decision to publish what he had.

He was perfectly within his right to do so.

In 2020, Goldberg accused then-President Donald Trump of referring to American soldiers laid to rest in a French cemetery as “suckers” and “losers”. There is no confirmation that Trump ever uttered those words.

In fact, John Bolton, the man who held Waltz's position at the time Trump is alleged to have said them, said he was there and never heard Trump say that.

Had Trump referred to American soldiers in such terms, you can bet Bolton would have confirmed it. To say the relationship between Bolton and Trump is frosty would be a gross understatement.

Did Goldberg bear false witness? Quite possibly. That doesn't make him wrong to publish what Waltz served up to him on a silver platter, by adding him to a distribution list.

When it comes to Waltz's decision to use Signal chat, he ultimately opened himself up to warranted criticism because he made a high-stakes error. It was a mistake that could have ranged from anywhere between extremely serious to catastrophic.

Had Goldberg published the plans before the March 15th airstrikes, the operation would have been aborted. Had the Iranians or Houthis intercepted those plans, American lives and/or equipment could have been lost, just as what happened during the 2021 Afghanistan pullout.

Should Waltz be fired? Possibly.

Should Joe Biden have fired Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley for the disastrous Afghanistan exit in 2021? The answer to that question is much clearer cut. There, the U.S. lost 13 soldiers and billions of dollars of military equipment when it was left behind.

The answer to each one of those questions demands intellectual honesty. Anyone who demurs or defends the Biden administration in response to the second question is unserious if they answer in the affirmative in response to the first question. It's intellectually dishonest and borders on gaslighting.

Similarly, those who believe Goldberg attributed words to President Trump that the latter did not say, should not have a problem with Goldberg publishing what Waltz sent him via Signal chat.

Bolton strongly criticized Waltz and other Trump officials for relying on Signal for such sensitive communications. He also defended Trump against Goldberg when the latter made incendiary, and very possibly, false claims.

Trump's most ardent supporters disagree with Bolton now but tout his defense of Trump then. In this case, it's Bolton who's being consistent.

Compartmentalization is important. In the end, Waltz's fate is in Trump's hands. History will judge the president for his decision.

Intellectually honest conservatives should not demonize Goldberg in this instance. In fact, he did his job here. The effect was holding the administration accountable.

This is not a bad thing; it is the opposite. If Trump retains Waltz, this experience should make him better.

Anyone remember the Pentagon Papers? In that case, The New York Times came into possession of a classified report about U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled the Times had the right to publish.

With the passage of time, the release of those papers arguably served the public good, especially when it comes to what the country has learned about the Vietnam War since.

How about Wikileaks? Whatever Julian Assange released to the public often determined who his supporters and detractors were.

When Wikileaks released U.S. military secrets, conservatives considered Assange a traitor. When it released DNC emails on the eve of the 2016 election, Assange suddenly became a hero to many of the same people.

Intellectually honest people give their previously held positions an honest look and eschew the cognitive dissonance they counterintuitively find comfort in.

If conservatives desire the credibility that comes with consistency, their criticism should be directed at Waltz in "SignalGate."

Consequences are another matter.

Jim Renacci was raised in a blue-collar union family, pursuing the American dream, leading to his operating over 60 businesses, creating 1,500 new jobs, and employing over 3,000 people. As a four-term conservative U.S. congressman, Jim served on the powerful U.S. House Ways and Means and Budget Committees, cutting government spending. Read More of Jim Renacci's Reports — Here.