They've found that Russian influence only reached a small number of users and that mainstream media had a much larger influence.
Abstract:
There is widespread concern that foreign actors are using social media to interfere in elections worldwide. Yet data have been unavailable to investigate links between exposure to foreign influence campaigns and political behavior. Using longitudinal survey data from US respondents linked to their Twitter feeds, we quantify the relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and attitudes and voting behavior in the 2016 US election. We demonstrate, first, that exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior. The results have implications for understanding the limits of election interference campaigns on social media.
This is the most effective way to walk libs off the Russiagate ledge. They will not buy that there was zero influence, and that probably isn't true anyway. What's likely true, and what guts the whole Russiagate narrative, is that Russian influence was a drop in the bucket. This also works well with the litany of articles you can find talking about the billions in free media coverage even lib outlets gave to Trump.
Most importantly, this gives libs an out where they can think they were somewhat correct (Russia did attempt to influence the election, it just amounted to very little). Most people don't react well to being told they're completely, 100% wrong.