This isn't hard to find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... has over 500 references. The senate committee report was over 1300 pages. The evidence is readily available and as well documented as you could expect. At a certain point, the onus is on you to provide refutations on why what exists doesn't meet your impossibly high bar.

Your very link quotes: 'investigators “did not have sufficient evidence” to prove active participation in the hacks or knowledge that the electronic thefts were continuing.'

Please do not spam non-evidence. It's "an impossibly high bar" for you. But do not call it evidence. I am familiar with the level of information collection that occurs, and I do not view this as a high bar.

That quote is specifically referencing whether Trump actively participated in the efforts, which is not part of any of this discussion (though many of his close associates did).

Re-read for close comprehension: the subject of the sentence is "Wikileaks."

Isolated demand for rigor? Aren't we in a thread complaining about YouTube deplatforming views that don't meet the bar you're setting here?