Hey, Wall Street—Still not worried about Trump after that crazy press conference?

As the stock market takes a brief break from the torrid pace of its recent record run, one has to wonder just how complacent the market has gotten, not about economic risk, or policy risk, but about pure political risk inherent in the Trump presidency.

President Trump's 77-minute press conference on Thursday, dubbed "Festivus" by one political reporter, was largely substance-free combination of assaults on the press and the intelligence community, and included the sort of "non-denial denials" that were the hallmark of a troubled administration which ushered in its own Constitutional crisis some 45 years ago.

The markets have risen on reasonable expectations for a drastic change in fiscal policy, tax policy and regulatory policy, all of which, when taken together, would stimulate the economy, improve corporate profitability and let loose the animal spirits that, well, animate economic activity.

The market has rallied to a succession of all-time highs, gaining nearly 10 percent since the day after the election.

However, as CNBC's markets commentator Mike Santoli recently noted, the market is looking a bit technically tired. It appears overbought in the short-term and in need of a restful consolidation of its recent gains … or at least until the hope of policy reforms become reality.

More worrisome, to me, however, is the degree to which the market has become complacent … not about policy risk, but about rising domestic political risk.

Certainly, the president's supporters might call his recent political setbacks a tempest in a teapot; however, it could turn out to be a tempest in a Teapot Dome … or worse.

The resignation of General Michael Flynn, the stated reasons for which notwithstanding, should lead a seasoned observer to worry that, as in corporate scandals, the first headline is rarely the worst, nor the last, in a situation where an on-going investigation has yet to reach any conclusions about potential illegalities.

"The Washington Post" reported on Thursday that Federal Law Enforcement officials believe Flynn may have misled the FBI over the contents of his conversations with a Russian Ambassador involving sanctions that were being applied to Russia for allegedly interfering in the presidential electoral process.

If true, lying to federal prosecutors is a felony offense and could, conceivably, lead to General Flynn becoming a cooperating witness in this investigation of Russian interference, should he choose, or be pressured, to do so.

The president's latest pick for National Security Advisor, to replace General Flynn, turned down the job.

The deluge of leaks, seemingly emanating from what insiders call "deep Washington," the permanent bureaucracy and long-time intelligence operatives, have not been supportive of the Trump narrative about Russian ties.

All of this threatens not only to undermine the Administration's agenda, but its very legitimacy. That should be of some concern, not only to Washington, but to Wall Street and Main Street.

In addition, The New York Times has reported that at least three former Trump campaign officials are being investigated for potentially illegal contact with Russian intelligence operatives amid concerns, as yet unproven, that they may have colluded to weaken Hillary Clinton's changes of wining the presidency, while assisting then-candidate Trump.

If any of this is proven true, it goes, almost without saying, that it would represent a political, and geo-political scandal, for which there is no precedent. Watergate, Teapot Dome and other crises in the White House would pale in comparison.

The stock market has not given the possibility a single thought, given the near historic reduction in risk, the depressed level of the VIX, or so-called, "fear index,' and the general optimism that has propelled the market since early November.

No one, in his right mind, would desire a scandal in which a foreign adversary had a role in electing a U.S. president amid hopes that his, or her, policies would then prove favorable to the offending country.

That is the stuff not only of treason, but also of war.

The President has denied knowledge of such contacts and has said, repeatedly, he has no business interests in Russia, no political ties to Russian officials or oligarchs, nor does he owe any Russian banks, nor individuals, any money.

We can only hope that this is true. But if this Administration should be compromised by the taint of foreign assistance, the financial markets at home, and abroad, are ill prepared for the storm that may be brewing.

On its own, the U.S. economy, far from being a "mess,' is doing quite well and supportive of equity valuations, rich though they may be.

If there is any hint of concern, it is in the behavior of gold and Treasury securities. We have seen early signs of a "flight to quality" in their recent rallies, amid the political uncertainties about which Wall Street appears unconcerned.

We'll see which markets are right. But I wouldn't stop paying attention to the barbarous relic nor U.S. bonds. They may be hinting that there is more serious trouble brewing in Washington than anyone on Wall Street currently expects.

Commentary by Ron Insana, a CNBC and MSNBC contributor and the author of four books on Wall Street. Follow him on Twitter @rinsana.

For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.