Well that settles that then? Two "experts"?
Schumer obviously played the Political Card, but then so did the Adminstration pull its own aces out of the deck.
I honestly don't think a security "risk" can truly totally be discounted in this case, as much as some of us would liked to have believed it were so.
In this case, they could't find ANY port experts to say there was a security problem. So they went to Schumer, and he gave them the names of two that "agreed with him". When asked though, these two ALSO said there was no security problem.
So it's not that someone happened to find two people who disagreed with Schumer, it's that EVERYBODY disagreed, even the people he said would agree with him.
It is certainly true that we can't guarantee there would be no security issue, but that's true even if americans run the terminals.
No opponent was ever able to provide a concrete security problem with the deal, only nebulous fears of what might happen in the future, or blanket assertions that american companies would inherently be better at security than a foreign company, with no proof for the assertion.