Further revelations have added fuel to the fire in the Trump administration’s Signal scandal, in which senior administration officials discussed a military operation over the commercial-grade encrypted messaging app, Signal, and inadvertently included a reporter in their conversation. Following an initial round of denials from the Trump administration, The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg responded with screenshots of the conversation, which a National Security Council (NSC) Spokesman had already admitted was authentic.

After Golberg published his initial story on Monday, Trump administration officials repeatedly downplayed the significance of what was discussed in the chat. “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that,” declared Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, “no classified material was sent to the thread” and “no ‘war plans’ were discussed.” Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard testified Tuesday to the Senate Intelligence Committee that, “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group.” President Donald Trump himself reiterated, “It wasn’t classified information.”

This talking point was open to them because The Atlantic’s first story “withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts,” Goldberg explained in a follow-up piece on Wednesday. “As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.”

But just because this talking point was available did not make it wise. In essence, the Trump administration tried to call Goldberg’s bluff. That move can work on someone who is, indeed, bluffing. But Goldberg was holding a full house, and the Trump administration, whose officials were privy to the same Signal chat, knew it.

“The statements … made by numerous administration officials … have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions,” Goldberg wrote.

“Yesterday, we asked officials across the Trump administration if they objected to us publishing the full texts,” he continued. Since the Trump administration had publicly committed itself to the position that the Signal chat contained no classified information, they could muster only a tepid objection. “Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: ‘As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation.’”

The Atlantic therefore published the entire text chain. The only redaction they made was the name of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief John Ratcliffe’s chief-of-staff, “because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified.”

The screenshots published by Goldberg included a message from Hegseth on March 15, which The Atlantic had previously only summarized:

“TEAM UPDATE:

“TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command, which controls forces in the Middle East] we are a GO for mission launch.

“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)

“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)

“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)

“1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)

“1536: F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”

Hegseth sent a second message just afterward:

“MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)

“We are currently clean on OPSEC [operational security].

“Godspeed to our Warriors.”

The debate hinges upon whether the information communicated here is, or should be considered as, classified. Publicly debating this point is complicated by the fact that the current classification guidelines are themselves classified. However, previous versions have been declassified, and it would be remarkable if the guidelines varied much over time. According a Classification Guide declassified on March 16, 2016 (Section 3.4.3) the following information regarding military planning is classified:

“General information or assessments regarding the military plans, intentions, capabilities, or activities of the US, its allies, coalition partners, or foreign adversaries.” — Classification Level C (for Classified)

“Specific information or assessments regarding the military plans, intentions, capabilities, or activities of the US, its allies, coalition partners or foreign adversaries.” — Classification Level S (for Secret)

“Information providing indication or advance warning that the US or its allies are preparing an attack.” — Classification Level TS (for Top Secret)

The Hegseth message announcing an imminent U.S strike, two hours before it happened, appears to qualify as information deserving Top Secret classification.

“As a matter of crisis communications, it would have been better if Trump officials had simply admitted that they had made a grievous error and promised to tighten up their communications methods and procedures to ensure that all highly sensitive conversations were conducted in the appropriate venue,” judged the editors of National Review. “Damage control is not supposed to cause more damage, but that is what President Trump’s team has created with its reaction to the Signal leak story.”

In response to the flubbed cleanup, left-wing activist organization American Oversight has sued the Trump administration, alleging that several officials violated the Federal Records Act. Unfortunately for the Trump administration, that case has been assigned to Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee on the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

Boasberg has already sparred with the Trump administration over his attempts to stonewall the deportation of illegal immigrant criminals. Trump has already urged Congress to impeach the “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge,” and the actions of Boasberg and other activist judges have prompted the introduction of legislation to prohibit district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.

It’s unclear what the Trump administration’s next move should be, or how the Signal scandal will unfold next. What is clear is that attempts to cover up a mistake often make a scandal worse. From Nixon (Watergate) to Reagan (Iran contra affair) to Clinton (Lewinsky), multiple administrations have found this out the hard way.

On this point, “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). King Saul’s attempt to spin the narrative around his disobedience led to his rejection by God (1 Samuel 15:20-23). King David’s attempted cover-up (2 Samuel 11:6-25) brought a public curse upon his house (2 Samuel 12:10-13). Only David’s confession brought forgiveness (2 Samuel 12:13).

David’s son Solomon later reflected, “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy” (Proverbs 28:13).