Harry Mitchell lies about David Schweikert in act of desperation!

By Intellectual Conservative, Arizona

Democrat House incumbent Harry Mitchell is so desperate to save his seat in Congress he is spreading a smear campaign about Republican challenger David Schweikert. In video ads, he claims that Schweikert preyed upon victims losing their homes to foreclosure. He claims that Schweikert even bought a home that an owner was in the process of saving. All of these accusations are FALSE. Schweikert has NEVER bought a property from a homeowner in foreclosure. He has never even owned someone’s mortgage or deed of trust. He has never loaned money to anyone. He buys property from BANKS and trustees. The banks have already foreclosed on the homes he buys. After Schweikert purchases these properties, he fixes them up and rents them. This is standard practice for any typical real estate investor.

Mitchell can’t get his facts straight on business because he doesn’t understand it. Apparently he would rather prohibit investors from buying foreclosed homes from banks? Just let the properties sit with weeds growing as the banks own them? It makes no sense. We NEED investors to purchase these properties. Especially investors who will fix them up instead of just letting them sit deteriorating. Schweikert actually fixes them up and puts them back out on the market for people to rent, he doesn’t just sit on them and wait to sell.

We hear Mitchell is the one with real estate problems. Apparently something is about to come out regarding his rental property. Maybe the Democrats should have checked Mitchell’s properties first before they launched this bogus attack on Schweikert.


Comments

  1. Steve Calabrese says

    Smart move on Mitchell’s part. He knows that he needs to talk about anything and everything other than his actual record.

    It’s much easier to just imply that David somehow causes foreclosures. It’s not true, but it sounds catchy.

  2. Seeing Red AZ post an article yesterday about a Minneapolis Star Tribune article about the very nasty attack ads by the Democrats. The article featured the Mitchell and Democrat ads against Schweikert, among a couple others. The blog was deleted by midnight, as if it never was there!

    Does Schweikert’s Campaign Mgr Oliver Schwab think that ignoring the issue will work? Now some attacks are frivolous AND should be ignored, but this one has legs since the economy is so bad. They needed to counterract it forcefully, especially since it is so deceptive. Too many book-educated Politicos without the street smarts to know how to analyze threats and respond.

    JD’s campaign made the same mistake on both Abramoff and the National Grants Conference Infomercial. Ignoring the latter greatly contributed to JD’s loss.

    Here’s the article for your perusal:
    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/103795059.html?elr=KArks:DCiUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

  3. Anybody notice how Gabby Giffords started attacking Jesse Kelly and defined the debate for the next 6 weeks.

    It took Kelly less than 24 hours to take the bait. And guess what, now the Dems will tear him to shreds because he’s having to continually explain himself. What he should be doing is staying on message and ripping Gabby to shreds on her liberal record.

    These Democrats will do anything they can to distract the voters from what this election is really about – jobs, the economy, and the liberals failed policies.

    Character assassinations on candidates like Schweikert around the country are one thing, and one thing only, a distraction meant to keep people from talking about the issues. Are you going to fall for the bait?

    Sam, look at the 11 trillion dollar taxpayer funded donkey in the corner – – Congressman Mitchell’s liberal voting record for ObamaCare, the bailouts, and an economy in shambles after Obama’s “summer of recovery.”

  4. the problem is this is a very nuanced argument. Schweikerts company does many times alert the people in their homes that the bank has sold their home and he bought it at the auction and they have X amount of days to get out (Thats where the story came from that Schweikerts company did deliver an eviction notice to a 12 year old).

    So what is schweikert going to say? I dont buy peoples homes and mortgages, they have already lost them by the time I buy them and I just let them know when they have to leave?

    Its a distinction i am not sure many people will care about.

    And how does he refute it? Does he do a TV ad explaining his current real estate job? That looks really defensive and the only way for a lot of people to hear you refute it is in an ad. Press releases and saying it at a debate that almost no one watches wont do anything.

    He is better leaving it alone and sticking to what Richardo said.

  5. Richardo,

    Have you seen Kelly’s new ad describing Giffords’ record? Its been getting national attention for being so effective and focusing on her record. I’m sure he would like to be running more of them but unfortunately, ads cost money. She has a lot of it and I’m doubt he does. Its up to us to help Jesse continue to get the Pelosi lap dog’s record out – donate your money and time!

  6. Anyone heard Ann Kirkpatrick’s attacks on Dr Paul Gosar.
    “Gosar is a millionaire who sent jobs overseas”
    (He’s a Dentist–He has no power to to that)

    As I told someone else, if Mitchell and Kirkpatrick’s ads were true, that would qualify Schweikert and Gosar for a job in the Obama Administration

  7. DaveH – that’s funny.

    Because Mitchell and Kirkpatrick’s voting records are actually for real, that qualifies them to sit on Santa Pelosi’s lap for more pork Christmas treats – – unless WE VOTE THEM OUT!

  8. I don’t get it.. are people really not understanding mortgages and the foreclosure process? By the time a house is sold at auction, the borrower has already been called ad naseum, sent letters and had notices taped on their door or window as to the auction date. Not to mention the borrower hasn’t been paying the bank back the money they have promised to pay them in at least 6 months by this point. They are fully aware that the house is being sold and have chosen not to leave.

    How is this getting so twisted around? Any simpleton knows how this works and why the bank re-sells a home they are stuck with.

    Buying foreclosures has been a very popular investment and income for many for a while now.

  9. Mitchell’s ads against Schweikert aren’t lies. In September 2009, Schweikert’s company served an illegal eviction notice to a tenant of a home that was just purchased at a foreclosure auction giving her 5 days to leave. Under the Protecting Tenants Foreclosure Act, a tenant can stay in the home for 90 days or until the end of a lease should one exist. This action was not only illegal but the eviction notice was given to the tenant’s TWELVE YEAR OLD CHILD. The woman fortunately knew her rights and sued Schweikert and WON. You can read the case here: http://yourlosshisgain.com/img/SchweikertEvictsRenter.pdf

    People are tired of of the slime. I happily vote NO on David.

    • Hey Nicole,

      Why don’t you show the documents that tie David Schweikert to your allegation?

      Because it isn’t true!

      You realize that if David was not a public figure your ass could be dragged into court for libel, slander, public defamation???

      Hopefully, I won’t have to track down your IP address and embarrass you.

      OK, I won’t track you down but you really should stop reading and posting the DCCC Talking Points!

  10. It’s also not slanderous if it’s true.

    http://www.yourlosshisgain.com/img/Schweikert%202010%20Personal%20Financial%20Disclosure%20sm.pdf

    http://yourlosshisgain.com/img/Schweikert_fines.pdf

    First one is a pdf of David’s financial disclosure statement for his congressional run where he lists on the last page that he is involved with and receives money from Swartz and Brough. Second one is one of the many ordinance violations Swartz and Brough has received for blight.

    Simply buying foreclosed homes in and of itself is not the problem. It is a problem when vulture investors buy many foreclosed homes purely as an investment to sit on and don’t take care of the houses. Not keeping a house properly maintained hurts the home values of everyone else nearby. And why aren’t the homes being cared for? Probably because they’re empty, just sitting there. Vulture investors like Schweikert don’t care about their upkeep, real homeowners would.

  11. DSW,

    If its so slanerous and libelous why hasn’t schweikert sued the az dem party already? That would actually be quite an easy way to refute (not actually sue them of course because that would cost a lot of money and time) but threaten to sue… It would likely get picked up by the msm and at least get david fighting back against this for cheap… So why has this site been around for a month and david has done nothing if its so libelous?

    I think its because as I said in my earlier post, its a nuanced argument that’s not worth david fighting over and he is better off attacking mitchells record…

  12. Nicole D,
    The real “slime” is the homeowner that took rent payments monthly from the tenant and never made the mortgage payment. The real “slime” is the guy who lets a home foreclose on the tenant he had the agreement with.

  13. And one could say that the REAL slime lies in the fact that liberal policies which are slime creating are obfuscated in order that their practioners can return to do more damage!

    McCain go away with this tack at the expense of Hayworth so why shouldn’t his ideological acolytes Mitchell and Giffords do likewise!

Leave a Reply