IIRC (from self-directed studies in UCC / torts as a bored teenager who spent his summers at the UofM law library in Dearborn, MI and NOT as a lawfag licensed to practice law) consideration, in the sense of a physical exchange, is not a necessary element of a contract. Offer. Acceptance. Performance. That's it. And yes, those three words conceal one hell of a lot of complexity!
He proposed a meeting. She signaled her acceptance of that when she countered with a date and time. He accepted that. As of that moment, a contract existed.
It is now up to her to perform on the accepted counter offer. Ignorance of whether she was entering into a contract or not is no excuse for failure to perform. She is an adult engaged in the management of that venue and is therefore presumed to have knowledge of the legalities thereof and competent to enter into contracts concerning it. If she had any doubts as to what to do, the House of Representatives is crawling with attorneys competent to advise her either "off the cuff" or formally. At this point, President Trump can forgive the contract outright. He can forgive it contingent on some negotiated alternative of equal or superior value in his eyes or he can demand performance of the original contract. There is also an offer on the table from North Carolina to deliver the talk from their chambers.
Please to note, too, that Article 2, section 3 of the Constitution gives him FAR more authority in the matter than Pelosi possesses. If he says she's fked, she's fked.
>>4834673 (PB)
This project has been percolating for some 30 years or so. Eminent domain WILL be necessary as the mechanism by which landowners are compensated and title transferred. This is the proper use of eminent domain and not a legal problem. There are EPA and other waivers in place already. As far as blueprints … where have you been the past year or so?
>>4834681 (PB)
He just told you to fuck yourself and you are too dumb to even realize it. So sad.
>>4834836 (PB)
Come on baby, light my fire
Try to set the night on fiiiiire!
>>4834982 (PB)
What is MORE important than the defense of the nation from foreign invasion?
>>4834889 (PB)
I never served. So, from that vantage point: fuck you. You do NOT get to criticize people who have put their lives on the line in support of a genuine conviction. I never wore the uniform but have done that a couple times with real-world die-alone ramifications. If you aren't willing to step out like that, go have another soy-latte with your tatted up, glazed-eye, fuzzy thinking liberal friends. If a man is unwilling to back his words with his life, he is not worthy of the title.
>>4834477 (PB)
No. In their world, facts are whatever they want them to be. Our job is to see to it that their world of delusion does not survive.