As for the blog. I really could care less what a security company has to say. If it's worth reading it will be an op-ed for a major publisher. Otherwise it's a complete waste of time.

You do care what a security company has to say though. Where do you think the intelligence agencies got their information? It might not be an op-ed for a major publisher because they might not have the will or means to do so. Maybe it doesn't fit the spin of whatever news organizations have. Information is information. If you are more interested in how that information is presented, then there is no reason to continue to debate.

Not sure where you're going with the goalpost reference. You linked an article about where Assange claims the leaks came from, mainly relating to Hillary Clinton. The issue at hand has absolutely nothing to do with Julian Assange. This is information that he is not privy to since the sources for this story connect it to Russian officials and Assange claims the Russian government had absolutely no role in the Wikileaks dumps.

You asked for information:

Do you have any information showing this report as false?

I provided some. Then you moved the goalpost. The story broke because Wikileaks published the emails. Then the accusation came out that it was the Russians that hacked the emails that were published on Wikileaks. Then you claim that Assange has nothing to do with the issue. He is the founder and Editor-in-chief of Wikileaks and would be privy on where his information comes. Wikileaks is the source of this story and there was nothing about Russian hacking until Wikileaks released the emails.

Wikileaks publishes emails, DNC claims Russians hacked to get emails, Wikileaks says it didn't come from Russian government. I also provide further reading in that blog post you simply refuse to read because, without any investigation, you claim it isn't good enough because it isn't from a major media outlet.

I don't believe you are debating in good faith. I am done.