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.
Have reputable news organizations investigated allegations about Joe Biden and Ashley Biden bathing or showering together?
Executive summary
Reporting and fact‑checks confirm that a private diary attributed to Ashley Biden contains entries describing childhood showers with her father and that Ashley has acknowledged portions of the diary in court filings; fact‑checkers (Snopes) and court documents are the primary public records on the matter [1]. Major mainstream news organizations’ independent investigative reporting specifically alleging that Joe Biden and Ashley Biden bathed or showered together in a criminal or sexual context is not documented in the sources provided; coverage has centered on the diary’s provenance, Project Veritas’s role, and legal proceedings about the stolen diary [2] [1] [3].
1. What the diary reporting actually says — provenance and content
The material circulating about “showers with dad” traces to an alleged diary of Ashley Biden that Project Veritas obtained and paid for, and reporting and fact‑checks note entries in that diary in which Ashley described showers with her father as “probably not appropriate.” Snopes’s long review concluded that the diary’s contents about showers were reflected in the document and later revised its rating to “True” after Ashley Biden acknowledged diary excerpts in a court letter [2] [1].
2. Who investigated and how reputable outlets treated it
Independent fact‑check outlets such as Snopes have investigated the diary’s authenticity and content, documenting Project Veritas’s purchase and the chain of custody and reassessing claims when Ashley Biden’s court submission became public [2] [1]. The provided sources do not show other mainstream news organizations conducting on‑the‑record criminal investigations that independently corroborate allegations of sexual misconduct tied to those diary lines; instead, reporting emphasized the diary’s theft, legal ramifications for the sellers, and verification efforts [2] [1] [3].
3. Project Veritas and chain‑of‑custody concerns
Reporting cited in the fact checks highlights Project Veritas’s role in acquiring the diary (reported payments of roughly $40,000) and that the diary was removed from a Florida residence and later sold — details important to questions of authenticity and possible tampering [2] [1]. Those provenance issues are central to why outlets and fact‑checkers treated the material cautiously even as they examined specific diary passages [2] [1].
4. Legal outcomes and public admissions cited by fact‑checkers
Court filings and subsequent reporting played a key role: Snopes updated its assessment based on a letter Ashley Biden filed in court, which Snopes cites as a basis to treat diary excerpts as authentic for the purposes of its fact check [1]. The criminal prosecution of a person who sold the diary (reported sentencing) is part of the public record and is repeatedly referenced in coverage of the diary’s release [2] [4].
5. How partisan outlets have framed the story — competing narratives
Conservative outlets and commentators have foregrounded the diary excerpts as evidence of serious misconduct and have urged mainstream media to pursue the story aggressively; for example, opinion pieces in tabloids framed the diary as a scandal and criticized broader media coverage [5]. Conversely, fact‑checkers and some reporting have cautioned about chain‑of‑custody, the diary’s illicit acquisition, and the ethical and legal concerns of publishing stolen private material [2] [1] [3]. The result is competing narratives: one portraying the diary as damning, the other urging caution and careful sourcing.
6. What reputable investigative reporting has confirmed — and what it hasn’t
Available sources confirm the existence of diary entries describing showers and that Ashley Biden acknowledged portions in court documents, which led fact‑checkers to revise prior assessments [1]. The sources provided do not document a separate, on‑the‑record investigative series by major newsrooms that independently corroborates allegations of sexual abuse or criminal showering conduct beyond the diary text and its acknowledgment [2] [1] [3]. They also do not show a court verdict finding criminal behavior by Joe Biden related to those diary passages [2] [1].
7. Limitations, competing standards, and why this matters
Two reporting tensions shape coverage: the journalistic standard against amplifying stolen private documents and the public interest in allegations involving public figures. Fact‑checkers and some news organizations prioritized verifying provenance and legal context [2] [1]. Opinion outlets pushed the substantive allegation angle [5]. Readers should weigh the authenticated diary passages and Ashley Biden’s court acknowledgment against the absence in these sources of independent, on‑the‑record investigative corroboration beyond those documents [2] [1] [3].
If you want, I can compile a timeline of key public filings, fact‑checks, and prosecutions mentioned in these sources to show how the story developed in the public record.