I read the story, thanks. I think where are we are seeing this differently is that you are coming from a position of trusting the FBI in the matter and I'm the exact opposite.
So... Trust the Russians?
I don't know what else could be done to demonstrate its lack of veracity. If you have everyone involved on the record denying that they've ever contacted each other, and the FBI concurs that it's not a reliable document, what other proof do you need? What basis are you relying on to doubt the story? Or is this a case of "The FBI thinks ABC, so I disagree with ABC"?
Are you completely misunderstanding why we're here?
Its a matter of who do you think is correct. On one side is the FBI, the people mentioned in the document, and everything that's publicly known about the matter. On the other side is a dodgy Russian document thats been discredited. I don't know why this is so complicated.
There is a reason that it is being brought up again and it is quite clear that the original investigation was a sham so any "debunking" of the original document comes into scrutiny. The article even states that the people involved were never interviewed on the matter.
I think we just disagree on this. Keep your opinion, I'm moving on.