Here are some more stunning facts about The New York Times’ unbelievably unethical and careless behavior during the whole phony Trump/Russia fiasco.

As you already know, a summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation said there was no collusion between anyone in the Trump campaign and the Russians. We still haven’t seen the whole report, so Trump haters are still hoping there’s something they can latch onto to save face.

But the sloppiness of the Times’ work isn’t in dispute.

The Times and the Washington Post won Pulitzer Prizes for their coverage of the Trump/Russia story. And since Mueller has exonerated Trump and proven those accusations false, the two papers should return those prizes with apologies.

Did the Times just make an honest mistake in submitting its stories to the Pulitzer committee? Or was it more sinister?

You decide. Here’s a story from Jun 9, 2017, which was within the time frame for prize submissions for the 2018 Pulitzers. But this story — for obvious reasons — wasn’t one of the pieces submitted. And it didn’t appear on the front page of the Times, where many other Trump/Russia stories were placed.

It was hidden on page 21.

Under the headline: “Disputing Times Article About Inquiry Into Russia,” the Times wrote: “James B. Comey, the former FBI director, on Thursday disputed an article that appeared in February in The New York Times about contacts between President Trump’s advisers and Russian intelligence officials.”

“Answering a question about the Times article during an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Comey said that ‘in the main, it was not true.’ The article was the first to reveal direct contacts between Trump advisers and Russian officials before the election — contacts that are now at the heart of FBI and congressional investigations,” according to the Times in that June 9 story.

“Multiple news outlets have since published accounts that support the main elements of The Times’s article, including information about phone calls and in-person meetings between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians, some believed to be connected to Russian intelligence.

“Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he believed was incorrect about the article…,” the Times said in that June 9 story.

Despite being tarred and feathered by Comey, the Times proceeded on its charade to find evidence that we now know didn’t exist.

I doubt that the Times will ever make amends to its readers or to Trump.

But I have hope for the Washington Post, which also won a Pulitzer for stories that turned out to be — at the very least — exaggerated.

Martin Baron, the editor of the Washington Post, edited my columns years ago when I was writing for the Los Angeles Times. He’s a Pulitzer winner on his own and his ethics are beyond question.

Someday, he’ll probably come around and ‘fess up to his paper’s mistakes.