The Abby-Gate Series #1
Bombshell Documents Rock Spanberger's Gubernatorial Race, Revealing Her Campaign’s Fingerprints All Over a Political Hit Job Disguised as a State Party Statement.
INVESTIGATIONS: By Walter Curt
In Richmond, a defamation trial has pried open the inner workings of Abigail Spanberger’s political operation, revealing a coordinated hit job executed from within her campaign’s war room, scrubbed of fingerprints, and pushed into the public square under the banner of the Democratic Party of Virginia. Sworn depositions from her press secretary, campaign manager, and communications director, exclusively obtained by The W.C. Dispatch, place the origin of a November 3, 2022 press release squarely on the Spanberger campaign’s possession, drafted in-house, green-lit by top staff, and sent to the DPV for publication just days before voters went to the polls.
The document smeared Virginia veteran and former U.S. Senate candidate Thomas A. Speciale II as a “notable insurrectionist” who “attacked the U.S. Capitol” and “bloodied and beat law enforcement officers.” According to court filings, it was emailed to more than a thousand media contacts. Yet Spanberger swore under oath she had “no role in the writing or issuance” and never reviewed or approved the release before it went out. For a candidate now seeking the Governor’s Mansion, the clash between sworn denials and her own staff’s testimony raises more than legal questions—it goes to the heart of political trust and the lengths a seasoned Washington operator will go to conceal the machinery behind a political hit.
The record is blunt. Justin Chermol, Spanberger’s press secretary at the time, testified he “wrote a draft of a press release that was internally approved and sent along to the Democratic Party of Virginia as a draft.” It was created on the campaign’s shared Google Drive, edited by senior staff, and deliberately authored to appear as though it came from “the Democratic Party of Virginia.” Chermol admitted he drafted not only the release but also the quote attributed to the DPV spokesman. The approval lane ran directly through Campaign Manager Sam Signori and Communications Director Connor Joseph––both of which are employed by her campaign today.
Signori’s testimony confirmed the control structure: Chermol reported to him and Joseph, and both signed off on “final products” before they went anywhere. The campaign’s records lived in G Suite—Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides—accessible to senior staff, with no credible explanation offered for why key communications wouldn’t be preserved. Joseph’s account matched the others: he and the campaign manager edited and approved the release, ensured it followed “the right message,” and made sure it was “intended to be sent from [the DPV].” When asked who decided to send it through the party instead of the campaign, Joseph said plainly: “I was in that chain. … Our campaign manager, Sam.”
On the party’s side, DPV press aide Gianni Snidle testified the release was approved by “the Abigail Spanberger campaign” and that he “worked with Justin Chermol on it.” He received the document only hours before publication and, critically, confirmed he did “no” research into the claims before pushing it live. That meant the inflammatory accusations against Speciale—including allegations of violence against police—went out under the DPV masthead without independent verification.
Adding another layer, exhibits show the release embedded a Russia Today (RT) video and linked to an activist website called “Jan6Attacks.” The sourcing raises eyebrows given Spanberger’s background as a CIA case officer and her cultivated image as a national-security professional. Neither Chermol nor Snidle could say the material was vetted for accuracy or appropriateness before it hit the public.
Spanberger’s sworn affidavit, filed in October 2024, is absolute: “I had no role in the writing or issuance… I did not review or approve [it] prior to its issuance.” Her legal team has leaned on that statement to argue she “was not in the chain” and should not be deposed. But the plaintiff’s filings counter with the campaign-originated draft, the senior-staff approvals, and the no-research admission at DPV, describing it all as a coordinated operation designed to weaponize the state party’s platform against a Republican opponent in the final week of the race.
The court has not yet ruled on the defamation merits. In December 2024, the judge allowed further examination via written questions under Virginia Rule 4:6, rather than a live deposition of Spanberger. But her staff’s testimony already in the record paints a clear through-line: the release was conceived, written, and approved inside the Spanberger campaign; stripped of a campaign byline; funneled through the DPV brand; and published with no substantive vetting.
Why it matters is simple. This case isn’t just about one press release—it’s about how political machines operate when the stakes are highest. It’s about campaign operatives exploiting the institutional weight of a state party to deliver attacks while shielding the candidate from direct accountability. And it’s about whether the public will accept sworn denials that don’t square with the documented workflow inside the candidate’s own shop. In politics, the chain of custody over words matters as much as the words themselves. Here, the chain runs straight to Spanberger’s door—even if she insists she never opened it.
