Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling dual use technology [nypost.com] (private and military uses) to Russia.
In case you haven't noticed, most of our "dual use" technology has been shared with the Russians for a long time already. For example, the decimal number system.
In some instances, we might even consider ourselves better off if the Russians did choose to adopt our technologies, such as fail-safe command and control systems responsible for nuclear weapons (supposing our technology is actually better; I suspect the Russians have had 8" floppy disk drives for quite a while already).
Just about any improvement in the Russian commercial space would probably trickle down to the Russian military (trickle down seems to work much better in some directions than others). Are we still in the middle of a 1950s-style total economic blockade? Not that I've heard. Our bigger technical battles are with countries who have not yet produced thousands of nuclear warheads.
In summary, all of this is all a lot of hand-wavy durf, durf, durf.
Point to a real technology and describe an actual scenario where the Russian military benefits, and then explain how the Russian benefit A) is a serious NATO concern, and B) wasn't going to happen anyway sooner rather than later. Having met that bar, then maybe this issue will start to seem important to people outside your particular Kool-Aid enclave.
Hint #1: you might need to avail yourself of sources other than wnd.
Hint #2: just about every dollar given to a politician comes from someone with an interest who wants something.
Arguably the Saudi's and their Wahhabist agenda have done more damage to American foreign interests over the last thirty years than anything the Russians have done. That line of thinking would probably lead you straight back to the Bush Foundation.
Bush's Newest Secret: Who's Funding His Library?
In this piece, Mother Jones at least displays the decency to tar the Democrats and the Republicans with the same brush.