Forget the Autopen Fiasco...This Is Joe Biden's Watergate
The column frames the alleged Justice Department surveillance operation as Biden’s “Watergate.”

SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYTownhall is an opinion-oriented publisher, and this article presents a strongly partisan argument rather than a report with independent verification. The author is identified, but the article gives limited scrutiny to its central allegations.
- Source type — Opinion-first source type lowers confidence in institutional neutrality.
- Editorial standards — The article uses strongly partisan language and does not independently test its central claims.
- Author attribution — The article identifies its author.
- Transparency — It attributes some claims to named officials and quoted records, but provides limited verification in the article.
The piece cites named officials, whistleblower disclosures and reported documents, but relies heavily on partisan characterizations and social-media excerpts. It does not present a response from the Justice Department or assess competing explanations for the subpoenas.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The column advances one side’s allegations and characterizations without a response from the officials or institutions accused, and its author uses openly partisan language.
- Counterarguments presented — No response or counterargument from the Justice Department or the accused officials is included.
- Loaded language — The author uses derisive and accusatory language in the narration.
- Source diversity — The cited commentary and claims come predominantly from Republican and conservative sources.
- Opinion vs reporting — The piece is explicitly an opinion column and states its verdict emphatically.
The column strongly condemns the Biden administration and its allies, while using derisive language for Democrats and presenting the allegations as established wrongdoing. Its framing favors Republican critics throughout.
- Language tone — Uses terms such as “rogue and corrupt” and calls the operation a “Watergate.”
- Framing — Frames the alleged surveillance as proof of Democratic wrongdoing and dismisses claims about Trump-era DOJ weaponization.
- Source selection — Relies on Republican officials and conservative commentators, with no opposing response.
Townhall columnist Matt Vespa argues that newly disclosed records show a politically motivated Justice Department surveillance operation targeting Republicans and conservative groups. Chuck Grassley says he is releasing 197 subpoenas, and Ted Cruz calls the operation “Joe Biden’s Watergate.”
Vespa describes Arctic Frost as a Biden Justice Department surveillance operation targeting conservative organizations and Republicans. He reports that Chuck Grassley said whistleblower disclosures showed 197 subpoenas had been issued to 34 individuals and 163 businesses, seeking records related to more than 430 people and organizations. Grassley said he was making the subpoenas public.
The article says Cruz was among the Republicans whose phone metadata was sought. Cruz called Arctic Frost “Joe Biden’s Watergate” and accused former Attorney General Merrick Garland and special counsel Jack Smith of political corruption. The article also says records released by Grassley showed Garland, Lisa Monaco and FBI Director Christopher Wray authorized the investigation.
Community verdict
VOTING CLOSEDNo good or bad look here
This story reports what happened without casting Biden in a good or bad light, so readers don’t rate it and it doesn’t count toward Biden’s record.
People in this story
SWIPE →Former president whose administration is blamed for the alleged surveillance operation
Senator whose phone records were subpoenaed and who criticized the investigation
Cruz's version of this story ↗Senator who disclosed records about the Arctic Frost subpoenas
Grassley's version of this story ↗Attorney general mentioned in the column’s comparison with the Biden Justice Department
Former attorney general accused of authorizing the investigation
President mentioned as a subject of the Arctic Frost investigation
Former FBI director said to have authorized the investigation
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…






