More vintage port

I am very curious about this whole ports deal.

As I posted below, I believe that the focus of this whole controversy was misplaced, that the REAL issue, more Bushite corruption and cronyism, was lost amidst the handwringing over 'security" and racism.

I also found the company's statement upon stepping back to be very interesting. First of all, it is based on an understanding that DP World "will not suffer economic loss." The question becomes, what is economic loss? From first-year contracts, there are several measures of damages. One is being restored to the position DP would have been in had it not made the deal (reimbursement for expenses, etc.) while another is the "benefit of the bargain"--realizing the profits that the party would have received from the deal. What are the odds that after a couple of news cycles, when America is once again distracted by NCAA basketball and missing young white women, that a sizable check from the United States makes its way to the UAE?

And also, what is a "United States entity?" Now not even the Bushites would be so brazen (I would hope) to have a company called, oh, let's say "Burtonhalli" or an outfit owned by, say, the "Lylecarl Group," as examples, do it. That said, the deal can easily be structured through levels of interlocking corporate relationships and private equity funds to benefit the same cronies who would have profited nicely from the original deal.

And of course, being a conspiracy theorist, I think we've been had. Now the GOP congress can go home in the fall and try to avoid the stain of a 34% approval rating by saying they stood up against the president for "homeland security."