I think the simplest way to say it is that they are invested and "believe in" Russell. They used a big trade chip to get him when he was only in AA, he rewarded them with multiple strong MLB seasons and being a part of the title team. I believe the FO when they say they're interested/invested in the people, and even absent the circumstances I think they hold the core players tighter than is optimal. Schwarber is a less gross example of this, it would've been easy/tempting to trade him at multiple points, but they believe in him being the best version of the player he could be.
As far as the DV stuff goes, part of it is not being able to reconcile the Russell you know and the Russell that did those things, and I think that comes out in how they've approached it. Reading Mooney's article on it this week, it's fairly clear that they've engaged earnestly on the broad issue of domestic violence, and there is logic to trying to be an example of rehabilitation, especially if your primary goal is preventing repeat offenses by that person. But all of that is mostly behind the scenes and doesn't force you to confront the outward message you send when you keep Russell around. It's a lesson they have not learned from Chapman and Murphy, that while we should do our best to rehabilitate those players, they are also avatars for the pain that so many people have experienced. Their bar for keeping those avatars around in the name of rehabilitation has not been near high enough, given the comments that all 3 of Chapman, Murphy, and Russell have made about those issues since being acquired/retained.