The leases that were implicated in the CFIUS review were for American terminal operations. Hence, an "asset" whatever rules of book-keeping you want to employ. This is not rocket science and none of the lame responses by the Globalists to date shows the least recognition of the reality. If you note, CFIUS didn't reject its jurisdictional oversight on your grounds. They merely bungled their assessment of the risks...and intentionally so. As if signing paper "Assurances" of abiding by our laws...suddenly make deep and profound porous security problems go away...
CFIUS reviews the sale of assets (or ownership interests) in the name of U.S. national security. The only person on this thread that fails to understand this simple fact is Mr. Ross.
"The leases that were implicated in the CFIUS review were for American terminal operations. Hence, an "asset"
There are 2 asset groups you are discussing here. One is the terminals themselves. These are American assets, but these are not the subject of the discussion.
The second is the lease of operations, which is an entirely different asset group. This second asset group was owned by the people who had the lease, that was P & O, which was what the discussion is about, and it was British owned not American.
The fact that there is a lease or rental agreement creates assets seperate from the original assets.