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.
Ashley Biden molestation
Executive summary
Coverage shows that a private diary belonging to Ashley Biden was taken and sold in 2020, leading to a federal prosecution of the person who sold it and confirmation in court filings that the diary existed; reporting says Project Veritas paid for the materials and a Florida woman, Aimee (or Aimee) Harris, was jailed for stealing and selling the diary [1] [2] [3]. Sources disagree on how much of the diary’s contents have been independently authenticated, and some outlets report entries alleging abuse while others — and fact-checkers — stress that publication and possession are distinct from verified factual assertions in the diary [4] [5] [6].
1. What happened to the diary: theft, sale, prosecution
In 2020 someone took personal items belonging to Ashley Biden from a Delray Beach residence; prosecutors say those items included a diary that was later sold to a conservative group, and in 2024 a Florida woman admitted involvement and was sentenced to a short jail term for selling the diary [2] [1] [3]. Reporting by multiple outlets tracks a chain: the items were recovered from a third party’s residence, Project Veritas paid for material obtained from that chain, and at least one person pleaded guilty in connection with the theft and sale [5] [1].
2. What the diary allegedly contains — claims vs. verification
Published reproductions and excerpts circulated online included highly sensitive passages, including admissions about drug use and passages framed by some outlets as suggesting sexual abuse or molestation; right‑wing outlets like National File pushed those assertions [7] [4]. At the same time, fact‑checking outlets and news reports emphasize that possession and publication of diary pages do not amount to independent verification of every factual claim within them; Snopes and related fact checks concluded that while there is strong evidence a diary existed and Project Veritas obtained it, authentication of specific content and corroboration of its allegations remained disputed or limited [5] [6].
3. Project Veritas’ role and legal scrutiny
Court filings and reporting indicate Project Veritas paid for materials connected to the diary (figures such as $20,000 or $40,000 are reported in some accounts), and the organization came under federal scrutiny as part of probes tied to how those materials were acquired and who received payment [1] [5] [3]. Project Veritas has not been charged in the cases described in the available reporting, but law enforcement searched related parties and investigations into the chain of custody were reported [3].
4. Statements from Ashley Biden and legal consequences
Ashley Biden herself wrote to a judge, according to reporting, that she will “forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online,” a filing that courts and fact‑checkers have treated as evidence the diary belonged to her even if individual entries’ factual accuracy remain a separate question [5]. The person prosecuted and sentenced apologized in court and cited personal trauma; prosecutors characterized Ashley Biden as the victim of the theft and sale [2].
5. How journalists and fact‑checkers treat diary claims about molestation
Some outlets republished diary excerpts that readers interpret as alleging molestation or incest; others and fact‑checkers caution that such excerpts, even if authentic, are uncorroborated personal statements and not the same as independently established criminal allegations [4] [5] [6]. AllSides’ aggregation and Snopes’ updates show the debate over how seriously to treat the diary’s content: one side treating published pages as evidence, another side warning against equating diary text with verified facts [6] [5].
6. What’s missing or uncertain in current reporting
Available sources do not mention independent forensic verification of every contested passage’s factual claims inside the diary — that is, whether extraneous evidence corroborates allegations of molestation is not documented in these reports (not found in current reporting). Similarly, no source in the supplied set shows that a court adjudicated any criminal allegation contained solely within the diary against Joe Biden; reporting focuses on theft and sale of private property, not criminal prosecutions based on the diary’s contents (not found in current reporting; [2]; p1_s8).
7. How readers should weigh these reports
Readers should distinguish three things: (a) the chain-of-custody story — that a diary was taken and sold and led to prosecutions (supported by reporting) [2] [1]; (b) the diary’s existence and some entries’ authenticity, which fact‑checkers say is likely or supported by court filings [5]; and (c) the substantive, criminal truth of any allegation contained in private writing — which requires independent corroboration beyond the diary itself and is not established in the cited reporting [5] [4]. Different outlets have editorial motives: partisan sites promoted sensational readings; fact‑checkers and mainstream outlets urged caution and emphasized legal and ethical problems with publishing stolen private material [4] [5].
If you want, I can pull exact excerpts cited in court filings and fact‑checkers’ analyses from the available reporting so you can compare wording and source claims side‑by‑side.