‘Not in Good Faith’: VA. Democratic Party Abusing Law To Protect Spanberger Ahead of Election, Plaintiff Says

After a judge ordered Virginia Democrat governor nominee Abigail Spanberger to give sworn answers in a defamation case against the Virginia Democratic Party, the Democrats hired a new lawyer in what the plaintiff says is a transparent effort to cocoon Spanberger from political peril ahead of the November election.

Thomas Speciale, a retired Army intelligence officer and former Republican U.S. Senate candidate, alleges that the party concocted a devious scheme enlisting the House of Delegates speaker to serve as its lawyer, thereby delaying the case and preventing Spanberger from being forced to deliver what could be politically catastrophic testimony as a witness.

Speciale is suing the Democratic Party of Virginia for defamation after it published a press release claiming he had “bloodied and beat law enforcement” at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Staffers in Abigail Spanberger’s 2022 reelection campaign wrote the press release, and a judge ordered Spanberger to testify in the case. Two weeks after the judge’s order, however, the Democratic Party took on a new lawyer, the speaker of the House of Delegates, Don Scott.

“I absolutely believe that them retaining Don Scott is a deliberate and willful effort to circumvent the law in Virginia in order to protect Abigail Spanberger because she’s running for governor,” Speciale told The Daily Signal. “In the judge’s order, he also recognized that they retained a new lawyer 17 days after they had been ordered to provide the deposition.”

Last month, Judge Richard Campbell ordered Spanberger to answer some of Speciale’s written questions under oath.

Scott Joins the Team

Later that month, Scott sent a notice to Speciale, announcing that he had joined the Democratic Party’s legal team.

“The defendant, Democratic Party of Virginia, has retained Don Scott as counsel,” the document states. “Mr. Scott is a state delegate representing the 88th District.”

“The General Assembly is presently in the 2025 Special Session of the General Assembly of Virginia,” the document notes. “The General Assembly, still being in session, and Mr. Scott being a member of the legislature, pursuant to [Virginia Code Section] 30-5, the Defendant moves this court to suspend” the case until 30 days after the special session adjourns.

Virginia Code Section 30-5 allows for the suspension of legal cases when a member of the Old Dominion’s Legislature is involved in a legal case during a legislative session. The law creates a buffer to allow lawyers who are serving in the Legislature to pause their legal work in order to focus on the legislative session.

Speciale’s Response

On Oct. 6, Speciale filed a motion for sanctions against the Democratic Party, in part to block the defendants from adding Scott to the legal team.

The motion condemns Scott’s use of Virginia Code 30-5 as “improper” and an attempt “to delay the proceedings and hinder the plaintiff’s prosecution of the case.” Speciale says Scott’s filing is “not in good faith” and “intended to obstruct justice.”

Speciale also noted that the Democratic Party’s legal team said Spanberger already had her answers to the questions ready back in July, but the lawyers said they would only turn them over under seal. The judge allowed some answers to be sealed, but most of them will be available on record.

Yet rather than turn over the answers “promptly,” the defense filed a motion to delay proceedings because Scott joined the team. Speciale wrote that the defense “strategically” hired Scott “to delay complying with the ruling the court issued.”

The Democratic Party “employed this topic for the improper purpose of protecting their candidate for governor from having to answer inconvenient court-ordered deposition questions under oath prior to the November 2025 election,” Speciale claimed. Hiring Scott and filing the 30-5 motion “constitute an obvious misuse of the legislative continuance provision, which is intended to prevent scheduling conflicts for legislator-lawyers, not to serve as a tool for delay.”

Speciale’s motion urges the court to disqualify Scott from representing the Democratic Party of Virginia, to require Spanberger to answer his questions orally before the court, and to impose sanctions on the defendant for abusing the law.

The Defamation Lawsuit

The case traces back to a press release the Democratic Party published on Nov. 3, 2022, five days before the midterm elections, in which Republican Yesli Vega was challenging Spanberger’s reelection to Congress. The party recently deleted the press release, which remains available on the Internet Archive.

“The case is very specific to the Spanberger campaign drafting, editing and approving a press release which they sent to the Democratic Party of Virginia to publish,” Speciale previously told The Daily Signal. “They did this in a deliberate effort to conceal that the press release was from the Spanberger campaign.”

Speciale said he issued “an immediate cease and desist” letter in November 2022, which the party ignored, and he filed his defamation lawsuit in March 2023. “It wasn’t until discovery when the [party] revealed the Spanberger campaign was the source of the press release.”

The Daily Signal reached out to the office of Speaker Scott, the Democratic Party of Virginia, the Spanberger for governor campaign, and the law offices of Breit Biniazan, the firm representing the Democratic Party. None responded to requests for comment about Scott joining the legal team.

The post ‘Not in Good Faith’: VA. Democratic Party Abusing Law To Protect Spanberger Ahead of Election, Plaintiff Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.