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 evidence was found in Ashley Biden's stolen diary?
Executive summary
Reporting shows a personal journal that people and outlets identified as Ashley Biden’s was stolen in 2020, sold for roughly $40,000 and publicly posted by a right‑wing site; Ashley Biden later acknowledged the diary’s existence and said its contents had been viewed online [1] [2]. Independent verification of every specific entry remains disputed in public reporting: fact‑checkers earlier called the diary’s existence “strongly” supported but separate from full authentication of published pages, and coverage describes the contents as controversial and unconfirmed [3] [4].
1. What was recovered, who stole it, and how it reached the public
Federal cases and news reports say two Florida residents admitted stealing a diary and other personal items left in a Florida home and selling them to operatives connected to Project Veritas; prosecutors and multiple outlets reported Project Veritas paid about $40,000 for the materials, and another right‑wing site subsequently published what it said were the diary pages [5] [1] [2].
2. What Ashley Biden has said about the diary
Ashley Biden wrote to a judge that her private journal “can be viewed online” and described the theft as deeply painful, language that led Snopes to change an earlier “Unproven” rating about the diary’s existence to “True” based on her statements; she also said her writings had been “constantly distorted and manipulated” [3] [1] [2].
3. What the published contents reportedly included
Reporting and commentary around the leaked pages have highlighted several themes claimed to appear in the posted diary material — references to past drug use, personal struggles, and a passage that some readers interpreted as describing showers with her father as a child — but mainstream outlets and fact‑checkers stress that the published contents remain controversial and not independently authenticated in court records cited by journalists [4] [3].
4. How fact‑checkers and news outlets framed authenticity
Early fact checks said circumstantial evidence and recordings suggested Project Veritas physically possessed a diary belonging to Ashley Biden, but they distinguished possession and ownership from full forensic authentication of the posted pages; Snopes explicitly separated “the factual existence of a diary” from “the authenticity of photographs purported to be from a diary” [3] [2].
5. Legal outcomes and their limits for proving specific claims
People who admitted stealing the diary pleaded guilty and faced sentencing; courts addressed procedural issues (for example, disputes over journalists’ privilege related to devices seized in the broader probe), but criminal admissions about theft do not equate to judicial verification of every claim printed from the diary — reporting notes those distinctions [6] [1].
6. Political context and how the story was used
Conservative outlets and commentators amplified the pages in the run‑up to the 2020 election and afterward; prosecutors at sentencing argued at least one person was motivated by politics when selling the material to Project Veritas. Newsweek and others pointed out that actors across the political spectrum used the story to attack or defend the Bidens, and that the diary’s publication became a political weapon as much as a journalistic episode [4] [1].
7. What remains uncertain or unreported in these sources
Available sources do not provide a complete, independently verified transcription authenticated by neutral forensic experts in court records cited here; they also do not offer a single authoritative public catalogue in these reports of every specific allegation printed from the diary [3] [4] [2]. If you seek confirmation of particular entries or phrases, current reporting emphasizes that those specifics are the disputed elements.
8. How to read competing claims going forward
Treat the sequence of facts—diary left at a Florida residence, stolen, sold for about $40,000, publicly posted by a right‑wing outlet, and Ashley Biden’s own statements that her journal was viewed online—as the strongest documented elements in the files cited; treat individual sensational passages as contested unless a neutral forensic authentication or an unambiguous legal finding is cited in available reporting [1] [2] [3].
Sources cited: See reporting and fact checks from Snopes, Newsweek, The Associated Press summaries in major outlets, Courthouse News Service and coverage of sentencing and letters by Ashley Biden [3] [4] [5] [6] [1] [2].