Were there any legal actions regarding the Ashley Biden diary leak?

1. Theft, guilty pleas and a sentence — criminal enforcement followed the leak

Federal prosecutors charged people involved in a scheme to sell a diary and other belongings they said belonged to Ashley Biden; two Florida residents pleaded guilty in that scheme, and Aimee Harris admitted receiving $20,000 of the $40,000 paid and was later sentenced for her role in stealing and selling the property ^{[1] [2]}. The Department of Justice publicly sought prison time for Harris, arguing the diary contained “highly personal entries” and that the theft and sale were criminal acts ^[2].

2. Who bought the material and how it became public — Project Veritas’ role

Reporting across outlets documents that Project Veritas, a conservative media organization, paid $40,000 for the items and was the intended buyer or recipient of the diary pages, which were later published on a right‑wing site in 2020; prosecutors say Harris and a co‑defendant sold the diary to Project Veritas ^{[5] [1] [2]}. Project Veritas has said different versions of how it acquired the material — it has claimed attempts were made to return the diary and that its staff believed they had lawful possession — but that narrative has not blocked criminal charges against the sellers ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Civil litigation and First Amendment claims — Project Veritas pushed back in court

Project Veritas sued and defended legal actions asserting that reporting and receipt of the diary implicated its First Amendment rights; a federal judge rejected Project Veritas’ broad First Amendment defense in December 2023, a decision that cleared the way for prosecutors to review nearly 1,000 documents tied to authorized 2021 raids and related seizures ^{[3] [4]}. The judge’s ruling diminished Project Veritas’ argument that newsroom protections should insulate its internal records from the government in this investigation ^[4].

4. Victim’s court filings and authentication questions — Ashley Biden’s statements changed coverage

For years outlets and fact‑checkers treated the diary’s provenance and the authenticity of published pages as unresolved; fact‑checking sites noted “strong circumstantial evidence” but distinguished the diary’s existence from authentication of specific images or pages ^{[7] [8]}. That changed when Ashley Biden submitted a letter in court proceedings stating the journal was hers and describing harm from the theft and publication; fact‑checkers such as Snopes later revised assessments in light of her court letter ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Sentences, restitution and prosecutorial posture — consequences for sellers

Sentencing reports say Harris was ordered to repay the money she received for the stolen property, and the DOJ publicly pushed for prison time during sentencing proceedings; prosecutors also pursued the co‑defendant, Robert Kurlander, as part of the guilty pleas tied to the scheme ^{[1] [2] [9]}. Coverage notes prosecutors emphasized the intimate nature of the material and the commercial motive in selling it to a political media buyer ^{[2] [9]}.

6. Competing narratives and political context — motives and implications

Conservative outlets and Project Veritas framed the matter as journalism or as a politically charged investigation and have criticized the government’s approach, with some allies suggesting partisan motives ^{[3] [6]}. Prosecutors and federal judges, by contrast, treated the theft and sale as criminal conduct irrespective of the buyer’s editorial mission; the judge’s rejection of a sweeping First Amendment defense undercuts the argument that news‑gathering claims automatically shield transactional records in this case ^{[3] [4]}.

7. Limits of available reporting — what sources do not say

Available sources do not provide full transcriptions of the diary content nor independent authentication of every page published online before Ashley Biden’s court letter; prior fact checks explicitly separated the question of the diary’s existence from authentication of photos circulated on the internet ^{[7] [8]}. Sources do not show that Project Veritas was criminally charged for purchasing the material; legal accountability in reporting rests with the sellers who pled guilty ^{[5] [1]}.

Conclusion — The leak prompted both criminal prosecutions of the people who stole and sold the material and litigation over whether buyers and outlets could claim First Amendment protection; court records and Ashley Biden’s own letter shaped later fact‑checking and public understanding, while judges allowed prosecutors considerable access to seized records as the criminal cases concluded ^{[1] [2] [4]}.