“As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.” —Washington Post, May 16, 2017

The above sentence didn’t appear in the Washington Post’s lead story, “Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian diplomats,” until paragraph seven. That’s because the piece is solely about the idea that Trump is careless with classified information, since he “went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft” in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

The meeting was held last week. A Wall Street Journal story reveals that the Department of Homeland Security, citing “evaluated intelligence,” instituted a cabin ban on laptops and other electronic devices larger than a cellphone for flights originating from 10 airports in Middle East and African nations.

That story was published March 21.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, who attended the meeting, references that inconvenient reality. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly,” he stated.

As for the Post’s assertion it was “unlikely” Trump broke the law, a 5-3 Supreme Court ruling in a 1988 case, Department of the Navy v. Egan, dealt with that. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority, held that the “authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security … flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President…”

Regardless, one of the anonymous sources for the Post’s story insists Trump “seems to be very reckless and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”

Trump’s recklessness with regard to national security? It was Barack Obama who scheduled America’s troop withdrawal from Iraq, facilitating the rise of the Islamic State — when he wasn’t busy paving Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb, or telling then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he’d have “more flexibility” for dealing after he was re-elected.

As for Obama’s intelligence track record, a couple of Washington Post headlines say it all. “White House Mistakenly Identifies CIA Chief in Afghanistan,” it revealed on May 25, 2014. “U.S. Offers to Share Syrian intelligence on terrorist with Russia” the Post stated — June 30, 2016.

June 30, 2016? Perhaps the Post might investigate why the same Obama administration sharing intel with the Russians in June precipitated an FBI investigation into Trump officials’ Russian ties — under the presumption the same Russians were a fundamental threat to the nation — less than one month later.

Ten months later the only thing we’ve learned about the “Russian connection” is that it represents the American Left’s congenital inability to accept the reality that Hillary Clinton isn’t president.

Those same leftists virtually ignored Clinton’s “problems with Russia” including the Clinton Foundation taking a million dollars from Uranium One, an entity sold to the Russian government in 2010, giving Russia control of 20% of America’s uranium deposits — a sale that required approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. And last March it was revealed Kislyak secretly met several times with members of Clinton’s campaign team. The number or nature of those meetings? Never disclosed — and never investigated.

Laughably, the Washington Post’s new, first-ever slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Democrats Survive Calculated Darkness is more like it.

The most damning aspect of the Post’s “blockbuster” is the reality that its reporters never bothered to contact National Security Advisor McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or Senior Advisor for policy Dina Powell for comment before publishing the current story — even though they were the only three U.S. officials at the meeting — as in people with first-hand information about it.

American Spectator columnist and CNN contributor Jeffery Lord reminds us at least one of the Post’s sources was a former official, and he asks how any former official could get access to any highly classified Oval Office conversation. He also reminds us the Post published two thoroughly debunked stories about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatening to resign, and former FBI Director James Comey requesting more money for the Russian investigation.

Speaking of Comey, an unnamed “associate” told the New York Times that Comey’s “diaries” reveal Trump asked him to end the Flynn investigation in a meeting three months ago. Trump denies it.

Who’s telling the truth? Fox News anchor and defense attorney Gregg Jarrett explains the law requires Comey to immediately report to the DOJ any attempt to obstruct justice, or face possible criminal charges himself. Jarrett says there’s no evidence Comey reported anything.

Thus, Jarrett continues, “by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.”

An avalanche of smearing aside and for better or worse, the electorate granted Donald Trump and his administration the power to run the government. It did not empower a shadow government accountable to no one but itself. Despite the hysterical, non-stop blathering by impeachment-crazed leftists and their media allies — all determined to anoint themselves as Trump’s judge, jury and executioner — it is this contemptible dynamic that represents a genuine constitutional crisis.

It is a crisis that must be addressed immediately. Toward that end Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to serve as special counsel with regard to the ongoing Russian investigation, one that should examine all evidence pointing to genuine malfeasance.

Not just evidence with regard to Trump and/or his administration, but evidence that might point to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a host of former Obama administration officials. Officials who seemingly embrace the colossal conceit that they are entitled to rule, regardless of election results.

Finding out who initially ordered the investigation of Trump officials would be a great place to start.

In the meantime, the Trump administration must exponentially ramp up its efforts to staff critical positions that remain unfilled, or worse, filled by Obama administration holdovers. And in a move likely to focus a lot of minds, maybe Attorney General Jeff Sessions should administer lie detector tests to every person in every department with direct or indirect access to classified information. Those who decline to be tested should be fired immediately. Any exposed leakers should be prosecuted — to the fullest extent of the law.

Time is of the essence: The Trump administration will either drain the swamp — or drown it in it.