What did Ashley Biden say in her letter to the judge about the diary and its theft?

1. The core complaint: a stolen, sold and publicized journal

In an April 8 letter made public by court order, Ashley Biden said she was “deeply saddened” that her personal journal had been taken and sold for profit, and that the theft left her permanently exposed because “I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online,” language quoted in multiple outlets and used by fact‑checkers to reassess prior reporting ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. How she says the pages were weaponized against her and her family

Biden wrote that her “stream-of-consciousness” entries were constantly distorted and manipulated to “peddle grotesque lies,” and that others had “once‑grossly” misinterpreted her now‑public writings, producing “false accusations that defame my character and those of the people I love,” a claim cited in Newsweek and other coverage of the unsealed letter ^{[3] [1]}.

3. Why she urged incarceration despite not attending sentencing

She explicitly asked the judge to impose jail time on Aimee Harris, arguing that only an incarceratory sentence would deter future “heinous” bullying and shaming of other women and protect personal dignity; at the same time she said she would not attend the hearing because being present “would only increase my pain,” a passage reported by CNBC and NBC Philadelphia when the letter was unsealed ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Legal and procedural context referenced in the letter

The letter was filed in the sentencing proceedings against Aimee Harris — who pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the theft and sold the items to Project Veritas — and was unsealed at The New York Times’ request with no objection from Biden or prosecutors, though the defendant took no position on the public release ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Federal prosecutors had separately urged a multi‑month custodial sentence, framing Harris’s conduct as a flagrant disrespect for the law ^[7].

5. The authenticity debate and how the letter affected it

Ashley Biden’s statement that the journal had been stolen and that its contents had been viewed online was treated by fact‑checkers as a form of authentication: Snopes updated its earlier “unproven” finding to “true” after citing Biden’s letter and the court record, a development covered in Snopes and Newsweek reporting ^{[8] [3] [5]}. Project Veritas had earlier said it could not independently verify the diary before ultimately acquiring pages, and that uncertainty had driven parts of the prior public debate ^{[7] [4]}.

6. Competing perspectives and unstated incentives

Coverage shows two competing impulses: Biden’s plea for privacy and punishment to deter future exploitation, and media/advocacy narratives emphasizing political motives and verification challenges — Project Veritas and some conservative outlets used the material politically even while initially acknowledging verification limits, while fact‑checkers and mainstream outlets pivoted when Biden’s letter confirmed the journal’s provenance for the court record ^{[7] [6] [5]}. The record also notes prosecutors argued Harris acted to harm Joe Biden politically, and Harris was ordered to forfeit money received from the sale ^{[1] [6]}.

7. What the record does not resolve in full

The public letter confirms Biden’s view of harm and confirms the journal was hers in the context of the sentencing record, but reporting indicates some earlier gaps in independent verification of every published excerpt; courts and fact‑checkers treated the letter as significant evidence, yet not every question about how material was selected, edited or presented in the press has been exhaustively resolved in the sources reviewed ^{[3] [5]}.