How about agreeing to terms? Otherwise, we're not even discussing the same thing as Adam Schiff. Please note that Mueller does not use the term "collusion".
Mueller specifically writes: “Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.”
col·lu·sion
NOUN
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others:
co·op·er·ate
[kōˈäpəˌrāt]
VERB
work jointly toward the same end:
co·or·di·nate
VERB
bring the different elements of (a complex activity or organization) into a relationship that will ensure efficiency or harmony:
Mueller does not use the term "collusion" and he specifically made note of that. Instead, he uses the terms "conspire" and "coordinate". This nuance is probably lost on the general public, but the term "collusion" is about "cooperating" as compared to "coordinating". As pertains to not "coordinating" with the Russian government, please note the qualifier at the end of the following statement "interference activities".
Mueller report:
“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the [Trump] Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
“we understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.”
“While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered foreign agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and Wikileaks’s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.