There’s no hoax, we know that Russian operatives purchased ads across social media to influence the 2016 election. We know that members of Trump’s campaign party went to the Russians for dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Missing a smoking gun does not mean that this was a hoax.
By that logic, could not any accusation have merit so long as enough "evidence" is produced to support it?
For example, producing a false document on a political candidate, then using it to drum up media speculation, while pushing politicians to "do something" to the point where they have no choice but to buy in to the narrative, and accept the talking points and media speculation as truth.
Generally when people insist something happened a certain way despite a massive investigation that concluded the opposite, we regard them as loony conspiracy theorists.
In this case the investigation “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government” but because the conspiracy theorists at issue are MSM-sanctioned they can peddle their poisonous hoax of a colluding, treasonous public official to their hearts content.
Missing a smoking gun does not mean that this was a hoax.