The national media are working in concert to deny that Ukraine's government tried to take President Trump down in the 2016 election.

A lot of journalists are — without evidence! — asserting that Ukraine's interference has been "debunked," as if Politico and the New York Times were reporting conspiracy theories when they exposed, in very clear terms, Ukraine's election meddling in the first place.

In truth, it hasn't been "debunked" at all, but they figure if they repeat over and over again that Ukraine's meddling is a "conspiracy theory" that's been completely "dismantled," people will just have to accept that as what it is.

CNN, on Monday, ran a graphic on-screen blaring, "Republicans push debunked Ukraine conspiracy theory." New York Times columnist Charles Blow, on Sunday, referred to "the debunked conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 election."

ABC News: "Trump continues to push debunked Ukraine conspiracy theory."

MSNBC: "Trump continues pushing debunked Ukraine conspiracy theories."

Associated Press: "Debunked Ukraine conspiracy theory is knocked down - again."

The "debunked" crew got a special boost during last week's impeachment hearings when former National Security Council official Fiona Hill testified that Ukraine's interference was nothing more than a "fictional narrative" that originated with — where else? — Russia.

CNN was beside itself, reporting that Hill's testimony "deflated right-wing conspiracy theories that Ukraine, and not necessarily Russia, meddled in the 2016 election." CNN lauded Hill for having "[taken] apart the idea that Ukraine was responsible for the real election meddling in 2016."

No, she didn't. She may have doubted that Ukraine interfered. She may have rebutted the idea of Ukrainian interference. She may have disputed it. She may also be correct that Russian interference was much more extensive. But nothing was "taken apart" or debunked.

Hill said she believed that Russia interfered in our election, and seemed to imply (although it wasn't completely clear) that Ukraine had not. Okay, that's a fine opinion to have, but it ignores all of the evidence that Ukraine did also interfere.

To contradict something isn't the same as to "debunk" it. If that were the case, Trump would have "debunked" the media's insistence that there was no emergency at the border, Brett Kavanaugh would have "debunked" Christine Blasey Ford's claim that he tried to rape her, and I would have "debunked" the theory that Charles Blow knows how to write.

Ukraine did interfere in the 2016 election. Journalists are free to deny it, and so are career government bureaucrats. That doesn't change the facts.