Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What new allegations about Ashley Biden emerged from the 2020 diary leak and what is their source?
Executive summary
Reporting based on the documents and articles in the provided set says the 2020 leak of Ashley Biden’s diary produced passages describing her struggles with addiction, references to trauma and a line about “showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate),” which some outlets and commentators have characterized as implying possible past sexual abuse [1] [2] [3]. The account of how the diary reached the public: two Florida residents admitted stealing or trafficking the diary and sold materials to Project Veritas; Project Veritas received tips in 2020 and later posted audio it said supported the diary’s provenance [4] [5] [3].
1. What the leaked pages actually contained — intimate entries, not fully vetted
Multiple items in the set report that dozens of diary pages published in October 2020 included personal material: descriptions of drug use, mental-health struggles, expressions of trauma, and at least one line stating “showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate),” plus entries in which the writer questions whether she had been molested [1] [2] [3]. These reports stress the contents were personal diary entries and that outlets publishing them did so shortly before the 2020 election [1] [2].
2. Who made the material public — Project Veritas and right‑wing sites
The chain of publication described in these sources indicates the diary material reached the public via right‑of‑center publishers and conservative group Project Veritas. National File published pages under Patrick Howley’s byline in October 2020, and Project Veritas has acknowledged receiving tip‑line contacts in fall 2020 claiming possession of the diary and related items [1] [5]. Reporting also notes Project Veritas’s later public postings of audio tied to its receipt of material [5].
3. How the diary allegedly left private hands — theft, sale, and guilty pleas
Several items in the set assert the diary was taken from a room where Ashley Biden had stayed and that two Florida residents later pleaded guilty to transporting or selling the diary; some accounts say the items were sold to Project Veritas for about $40,000 [4] [3]. Reporting cites court filings and statements that the Biden family’s representatives reported a burglary to federal authorities and that prosecutors later pursued charges tied to the trafficking of the materials [1] [6].
4. Claims of authentication and confirmations — contested and uneven
Project Veritas released audio it said confirmed Ashley Biden acknowledged the diary was hers, which Project Veritas used to support provenance [5]. Other sources in the set note that mainstream outlets had been cautious: the New York Times reported a Justice Department probe in 2021, and several pieces in the sample caution that the diary’s contents “haven’t been independently verified” beyond the diary itself [6]. Some commentators and partisan outlets treat the diary as authenticated; other reporting emphasizes the legal and chain‑of‑custody issues that complicate independent verification [6] [5].
5. New allegations and their character — implication versus legal accusation
The “new” or most politically consequential language extracted from the diary per these sources is a personal recollection and doubt — the shower line and a journal entry asking “Was I molested. I think so.” Sources in the set present these as accusations raised by diary text but do not cite a criminal charge against the president connected to those lines; many of the articles treat the lines as allegations or questions raised by the diarist rather than proven events [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention any independent criminal finding tied to the diary’s content or a prosecution of Joe Biden based on those diary entries (not found in current reporting).
6. Political context and competing narratives — motive and timing
The timing (published in late October 2020) and the chain of custody (sale to conservative organizations and publication on right‑wing sites) have been emphasized by outlets that argue the leak was intended to influence the election; Project Veritas and allied commentators frame publication as exposing a concealed truth, while other reporting highlights legal concerns about theft and the possibility of politically motivated distribution [1] [5] [3]. Some sources claim fact‑checkers later revised positions about authenticity; others caution that authentication and contextual verification remained disputed [7] [8].
7. What remains uncertain — provenance, context, and independent verification
The supplied collection repeatedly flags gaps: chain‑of‑custody questions, whether published excerpts captured context, and whether diary entries constitute corroborated factual allegations [6] [5]. While Project Veritas says it has audio supporting the diary’s origin, and court pleadings document defendants’ pleas over trafficking the materials, the materials’ full authentication and the factual truth of contested passages are treated differently across outlets and not resolved conclusively in these sources [5] [6].
In sum, the provided sources show the leak produced diary passages suggesting trauma and a line about “showers w/ my dad,” that Project Veritas and right‑wing sites played central roles in publication, and that individuals pleaded guilty to trafficking the diary—but they also show conflicting claims about verification and highlight unresolved provenance and context questions [1] [5] [4] [3].