Did Ashley Biden say that the entries in her diary were grossly misinterpreted

1. What Ashley Biden actually said — court letter and public record

In an April 2024 letter to a federal judge tied to the prosecution of people who stole and sold her diary, Ashley Biden wrote that her “once-private writings” had been “grossly misinterpreted” and that her “stream-of-consciousness thoughts” were “constantly distorted and manipulated,” assertions cited by news organizations and fact‑checkers as her confirmation that the words were hers while contesting how they were presented ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. How major fact‑checkers and outlets treated that statement

Fact-checkers such as Snopes updated prior ratings after the court letter, concluding the diary’s content had been authenticated by Ashley Biden’s testimony while noting her explicit claim that the excerpts were misread or used to defame her ^{[1] [3]}. Newsweek and Yahoo summarized the same dual point: authenticity acknowledged, misinterpretation alleged ^{[2] [4]}.

3. The journal’s publication and the criminal case context

Prosecutors say two Florida residents pleaded guilty in a scheme to sell Ashley Biden’s diary and other items to Project Veritas for roughly $40,000, and courts have overseen disputes over seized materials — a legal backdrop that figures in reporting about the diary’s release and the authenticity question ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

4. What “grossly misinterpreted” appears to mean in coverage

Coverage quotes Biden characterizing the journal as private, personal reflections and “stream-of-consciousness” writing used in therapy or healing; reporting frames her complaint as that others lifted passages out of context and presented them as definitive allegations rather than private, fragmented recollections ^{[2] [8]}. Outlets stressing authenticity still relay her protest that publication warped intent ^[1].

5. Competing narratives in the media ecosystem

Conservative outlets reproduced diary excerpts as politically significant and framed them as proof of misconduct, while mainstream and fact‑checking outlets accepted the diary’s authenticity once Biden’s letter surfaced but emphasized her contention that published excerpts were distorted or weaponized ^{[9] [2] [1]}. That divergence reflects differing editorial aims: advocacy and exposé versus verification and context ^{[9] [2]}.

6. Limitations in available reporting and what’s not in these sources

Available sources document Biden’s letter and the criminal prosecutions related to the diary theft but do not provide a comprehensive forensic timeline of exactly which passages were altered or how specific interpretive leaps were made; detailed forensic analysis of each public excerpt is not found in the cited reporting ^{[1] [6]}. Forensic or independent contextual reconstructions of individual entries are not provided in these sources.

7. Why Ashley Biden’s phrasing matters legally and rhetorically

Her statement that the writings were “grossly misinterpreted” served both as a personal rebuttal to public claims and as evidence used in court filings and sentencing context to show harm from the theft and dissemination; fact‑checkers used the letter to move from “unproven” to “true” regarding authorship while preserving her claim of misreading ^{[3] [1]}.

8. Practical takeaway for readers evaluating the claim

The factual elements in reporting are twofold and co‑present: Ashley Biden has acknowledged the journal’s authorship in court documents, and she has explicitly complained that public presentation of its contents distorted her meaning and defamed people close to her ^{[1] [2]}. Readers should treat published excerpts with caution, note the legal context of how the material was obtained and circulated, and expect partisan outlets to use the same facts toward different narratives ^{[9] [2]}.

If you want, I can compile the exact language from Ashley Biden’s court letter as quoted in The New York Times and Snopes, or map which outlets published which excerpts and how they framed them.