What evidence supports claims that Ashley Biden's diary says she was molested?
Executive summary
Snopes, PolitiFact and other reporters conclude there is strong evidence the notebook published online belonged to Ashley Biden and that she acknowledged the diary’s authenticity in a 2024 court letter, which prompted Snopes to change a prior “unproven” rating to “true” about the diary’s provenance [1] [2]. The diary pages circulating online include an entry that reads, “Was I molested. I think so,” and mention “probably inappropriate” showers with her father; outlets and fact-checkers report those lines as part of the published pages but differ on what they say about proof of criminal conduct [3] [2] [4].
1. What the documents show: quoted diary lines and published pages
Reporting and republication of the leaked pages include passages in which the writer questions whether she was molested — for example, one line printed in multiple outlets reads “Was I molested. I think so,” and other entries describe childhood showers the author called “probably inappropriate.” Those specific wordings are what circulated online and were cited by conservative outlets that published the diary’s contents [3] [2].
2. Authentication: why fact-checkers moved from “unproven” to “true” about provenance
Fact-checkers initially said there was strong circumstantial evidence the diary existed but lacked proof the photographed pages matched Ashley Biden’s handwriting or that she had formally authenticated the pages. After Ashley Biden wrote a letter to a judge saying her “personal journal can be viewed online,” Snopes and other outlets treated that letter as authentication of the diary’s provenance and updated their prior assessments accordingly [1] [2].
3. Prosecutors, the stolen property case, and what the DOJ confirmed
The DOJ prosecuted two Florida women who pleaded guilty to stealing and selling items taken from a former residence, including a personal diary tied by reporting to a relative of a public official; the FBI and prosecutors did not publicly confirm the diary’s contents or name Ashley Biden in charging documents, but news coverage and court filings established the diary’s connection to her in later reporting [4] [5]. The Department of Justice sought prison for Aimee Harris, who prosecutors say stole the diary and sold it to Project Veritas [5].
4. Project Veritas, publication choices, and chain of custody questions
Project Veritas has acknowledged contact with sources who provided materials but said it did not publish the diary; other outlets published copies. Early reporting noted audio and phone-call material involving Ashley Biden and Project Veritas operatives that fact-checkers treated as part of the evidence chain suggesting the group—or people who dealt with them—came into possession of the notebook, but chain-of-custody gaps and intermediary handling fueled debate about how the pages reached the public [2] [1].
5. What this does — and does not — prove about criminal abuse
The published lines in the diary express the writer’s suspicion and trauma: they are statements of personal belief and recollection appearing in a private journal [3] [2]. Available sources do not claim that the diary, by itself, constitutes legally proven criminal conduct, and the FBI and DOJ did not state that the diary’s contents were evidence establishing criminal action by any named individual in their charging documents [4] [5]. Fact-checkers and reporting draw a clear line between provenance/authentication of the pages and the separate question of proving allegations alleged within them [1] [4].
6. Competing narratives and political context
Conservative publishers and commentators treated the published diary passages as direct evidence warranting political and legal scrutiny; other outlets and fact-checkers warned against conflating a confirmed provenance with proof of abuse and noted long-standing partisan incentives to amplify salacious material during campaigns [3] [1] [4]. Project Veritas’ involvement and the theft-and-sale conviction of intermediaries made the diary’s release politically charged and complicated objective verification [2] [5].
7. Limitations in the public record and what remains unresolved
Public reporting shows the diary’s provenance has been affirmed by Ashley Biden’s court letter and by prosecutors’ work on the theft case, but available sources do not report any independent forensic confirmation published in open reporting that ties specific diary entries to criminal findings or to an investigative conclusion about abuse [1] [4] [2]. In short: the notebook’s authenticity as hers is treated as established by some fact-checkers and by her own court statement, but the content’s allegations remain personal recollection in a private journal, not a legal determination documented in the provided sources [1] [4].
Bottom line: the evidence that the diary pages are Ashley Biden’s rests on reporting, a court letter from Ashley Biden and fact-checker updates [1] [2]; the pages do include lines where the writer asks whether she was molested, but available sources do not report that those diary entries by themselves have been treated as conclusive proof of criminal conduct by any authority [3] [4].