As for the Dubai Ports deal, there was a legitimate security concern with handing over an American port to a company based in a part of the world brimming with anti-American hostility, even though Dubai is an ally. Would we have permitted a firm based in France or Italy, with their large Communist parties, to have operational control over a major port during the Cold War era? Or a Spanish, Swedish, or Argentinian firm, where the neutral regimes had fascist or pro-German leanings, to do so during World War II? The questions raised in this matter were legitimate.
HM was sunk when she couldn't answer legitimate questions. If the reactionaries hadn't blasted her for weeks for random quotes out of context from years earlier, and screamed for senators to deny her a vote based on her lack of a known position on Roe V. Wade, she would have been rejected by the democrats and republicans based on the FACTS, and America wouldn't have gotten the idea that conservatives were simply looking for ideologues.
There was nothing wrong with those arguing against her because of the lack of a paper trail or familiarity with constitutional issues. But there was a lot of other things thrown out their in an attempt to sway the politics without regard to the facts.
It could be the same here. The facts could end up exonerating these two men, but right now it's mostly shrill rhetoric about open borders, pro-drug prosecuters, a corrupt attorney general, and a president who should be impeached. Hardly a conservative way of examining the facts and reaching a rational judgment.
Heard of any nuclear bombs going off at a port recently?