Tone of investigations about the 2016 election appears to be dropping 'collusion' argument

Byron York:

Have you noticed? In recent public comments, the lawmakers investigating the Trump-Russia affair, along with some of the commentators who dissect its every development, seem to be focusing more on the facts of Russia's attempts to interfere with the 2016 election and less on allegations that Donald Trump or his associates colluded with those efforts.

Some of that could be just an impression. But the fact is, the subjects that have dominated discussion of the Trump-Russia matter lately -- Facebook and other social media ads and the most recent update from Senate Intelligence Committee leaders Richard Burr and Mark Warner -- do not necessarily point toward collusion. Rather, more often than not, the latest talk points toward Russian "active measures," that is, the effort to disrupt the 2016 campaign.

Why the change?

"Because that's where the evidence is going," one lawmaker who follows the matter closely told me in a text exchange. "I mean, things could always change, but that observation is just the reality of the situation right now, as I see it."

"Because they've been spinning their wheels on something for which evidence has yet to emerge," said another lawmaker.
...
In a recent speech to the San Mateo County, California Republican Party, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes said that at this moment investigators have more evidence of Democrats colluding with Russians than of President Trump doing so.
...

I think if there was evidence of real collusion by the Trump campaign it would have surfaced by now.  The only thing the Democrats can hang their hat on at this point is a meeting Donald Trump Jr. had which turned out to be nothing to collude about.  I think one reason Fusion GPS is so reluctant to reveal who paid them for the dirty dossier is that it might disclose ties to Russia in producing the hit job.