The Democrats are actually right about one thing: Donald Trump should have called Jim Comey into his office, had a civil discussion with him, and given him the usual “I respect you for the many things you’ve accomplished, but I’ve decided to go in another direction” speech.

“I’ve decided to go in another direction” is one of the great B.S. lines used day in and day out in the corporate world when you want to part ways with someone on a civil basis. For his own sake, I feel that using this approach would have served Trump much better than the way he handled Comey’s dismissal. My one caveat would be that he may have had a specific tactical or legal reason for doing it the way he did, but that’s something we can never know for certain.

Now, however, he should SHUT UP about it and get back to talking about the economy, tax reform, job-creation numbers, plans to stop Iran from building the bomb, his intentions to put North Korea’s Jumbo Jong in a straightjacket, improving the nation’s trade deals, speeding up the downtrend in illegal immigration, and more.

Tweeting Rosie almost tempted me to become a Never Trumper. C’mon, Donald, you’re president of the United States and you’re still fighting with someone you once called a pig? Even if her oinks are annoying, do you really want to dignify them? You’re married to one of most beautiful women in the world and you’re getting your kicks tweeting Rosie? How about putting a bit more effort into showing some outward affection to your wife?

Which brings me to the fact-free, Russian-collusion hysteria. First of all, I wonder how many people who are shouting collusion from the rooftops have any idea what the word even means. Technically, it’s a secret agreement between two parties to do something illegal.

In the case of Hillary, just from what we already know to be factual should be enough to put her in the slammer for 900 years, so a serious investigation is certainly warranted. But you don’t hire a special prosecutor every time someone comes up with an accusation with no facts whatsoever to back it up.

If I accuse you of beating your wife, but have no facts to back up my accusation, why should authorities investigate you? On the other hand, if I say that I’ve heard your wife screaming for help in the middle of the night, that deserves at least an initial inquiry by authorities.

Remember when slimy Harry Reid suddenly blurted out, with absolutely no facts to back it up, that “the word is out that he [Romney] has not paid any taxes for 10 years”? I’m a Never Romney person, but even I thought it was a shameless thing for Dingy Harry to say. Unfortunately, because Romney is such a wimp, he stuttered and stammered like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar and just let the accusation dangle out there indefinitely.

Had it been true, of course, Romney already would have been in prison, so the whole thing was nothing more than silliness. (BTW, years later Reid admitted he had lied about Romney’s not paying taxes, but steadfastly maintained that he wasn’t sorry he did it because the bottom line was that Romney lost the election.) Of course, if it were today, Democrats would have been calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Romney.

Now, back to the Trump-Russian collusion claim. Democrats, including their PR arm, the MSM, are running wild with their assertion that Trump “colluded” with the Russians in the last election, even though no one has been able to come up with a single fact to back up such a claim. Nevertheless, they continue to clamor for a special prosecutor to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter.

So does that mean every time a Democrat — or anyone, for that matter — makes a fact-free accusation about someone that a special prosecutor should be brought in to investigate? Was a special prosecutor called in to investigate the Benghazi cover-up, where there were indisputable facts known to the general public?

Or Fast and Furious, again where substantiated facts were made public?

Or Hillary, where the whole world heard FBI Director James Comey openly state that she had committed multiple felonies?

And what about Susan Rice’s unmasking of names in leaked emails? Hmm … I wonder who could have possibly given her orders to do that.

For all I know, Donald Trump may be guilty of a thousand crimes. And perhaps if someone presents one or two creditable facts that point to criminal activity, he will be found guilty and may even have to serve time. But right now — today — there are no facts that would give a serious person reason to believe he has done anything illegal.

Most important is something I touched on in a previous article — the fact that even if Trump or any of his surrogates did talk to high-ranking Russian officials during the campaign, what kind of collusion could he or they possibly have engaged in that would have changed the outcome of the election? What magic powers would any Russian have to change even a single American vote?

Regardless, it should be pointed out that Trump is a master of optics — bad optics. He should not have fired Comey in the manner he did. He should not have said that Comey told him three times that he was not under investigation. He should not have hinted that he recorded their conversations. None of these things are wrong, per se, just dumb — very dumb.

Now, you might be thinking, “If Trump is dumb, how did he become a billionaire?” I can speak from firsthand experience on that subject, because I’ve known several very wealthy people who, though they had a remarkable knack for making money, were really dumb about life in general. Making money and being dumb are not mutually exclusive propositions. Making money is an art form, and some people who are good at it sometimes remind me of idiot savants.

In Trump’s case (and this is all speculation), I think what manifests itself as dumb is largely a mixture of egomania, a desire to be loved, and a lack of self-control. If he had the discipline to talk only about his agenda and not allow the Dirty Dems and corrupt media to divert his attention to conspiracy theories, “collusion,” and how many scoops of ice cream he eats at dinner, I believe he could accomplish great things.

In a recent interview with Trump, I knew things were getting bad when Judge Jeanine, one of his three or four biggest supporters, seemed exasperated by his inability, or perhaps unwillingness, to explain why he can’t seem to ignore the shiny, attention-diverting objects the Dirty Dems keep shining in his face. She echoed my sentiments exactly.

Don’t get me wrong. We haven’t turned against Trump as far as wanting him to succeed and believing he has the ability to succeed. What we’ve turned against is his childish behavior and the fact that he seems incapable of focusing on the major things he has accomplished and that Americans actually care about.

No matter how skeptical many of us have been from the outset, we want to believe that Trump will be the first Republican president who has the courage to steamroller the Dirty Dems. But in order to do that, he has to (as Judge Jeanine would say) put on his big boy pants and get serious.

Some years back, Laura Ingraham came up with one of the all-time great book titles, Shut Up & Sing. She obviously was referring to Barbra Streisand, but Donald Trump would do well to think about a good paraphrase to that title, something like Shut Up and Carry Out Your Agenda. Because if things don’t change very soon, a lot more people are going to be joining the ranks of those 22 hi-profile “Against Trump” politicos listed on the cover of National Review magazine last January.

And what a shame that would be.