As said, not disproven.
> One of the main sources was also identified as a potential national security risk
The self-id'd source (Steele never confirmed) of mafia and spy secrets has a shady past. I'm shocked.
> considered the dossier worth reporting even without verification
The author was/is known as the single best source of Russian intelligence ops in the western world (the ex-head of MI6 in Russia). It was a raw intel doc never meant to be 100% accurate, but according to him "at least 90%".
> Let's not forget that this fundamentally started as a political opposition research document.
Yes, by Republicans terrified of a compromised criminal taking over their party.
> If you have evidence that links that hack to the laptop hard drive contents, then I suggest you share them with the FBI. Otherwise, your reading comprehension needs some serious improvement.
I can only assume you are trolling now. There is 0 evidence any of the leaked emails are from a laptop. It was reported a year ago that Burisma's emails were hacked and in circulation. The mental gymnastics you need to perform to not only think they aren't the same set of emails, but this paper-thin laughable cover story about a laptop in Delaware from a blind-shopkeep with 0 independent verification is just stunning to me.
The only answer is that you are smart enough to know this is all ridiculous, but are holding on to it anyways. Dissonance is a hell of a drug.