Has Ashley Biden provided evidence or corroboration for her allegations, and have any investigations been launched?

1. What Ashley Biden has said and what that amounts to

Ashley Biden wrote a letter to a judge about the harm caused by publication of her journal, and that letter has been cited by fact‑checkers as evidence that the diary and at least some of the published passages are hers; Snopes and Newsweek both note that her testimony provided authentication of the diary’s existence and content for their reviews ^{[1] [2]}. Conservative commentators and outlets have described specific, sensitive passages from the leaked pages — including references to “hyper‑sexualized” experiences and a line about showering with her father described as “probably not appropriate” — but those descriptions come from the leaked pages and subsequent commentary rather than a separate evidentiary disclosure by Ashley Biden herself as reported in the provided sources ^[5].

2. What investigations were opened and what they produced

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan opened an investigation in the final days of the 2020 campaign into how the diary was obtained; that probe produced court filings and the government sought evidence from Project Veritas operatives ^[3]. Courts later rejected Project Veritas’ First Amendment defense in a related case, which led to prosecutors obtaining access to a large trove of documents — over 900 documents pertaining to the alleged theft — and other court activity tied to defendants who pleaded in connection with the diary’s theft ^{[4] [6]}.

3. The Justice Department’s February 2025 decision

Despite the earlier investigation and filings, the Justice Department announced in February 2025 that it would not bring charges against anyone affiliated with Project Veritas over their role in trying to publish the diary; prosecutors did not publicly explain the choice in the one‑paragraph letter reported ^[3]. That announcement does not, in the reporting cited here, eliminate earlier criminal guilty pleas or prosecutions of individuals accused of stealing or selling the diary — the news accounts note related cases and convictions distinct from the decision not to charge Project Veritas affiliates ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Independent verification and fact‑checking

Fact‑checking outlets updated prior ratings after Ashley Biden’s court letter: Snopes changed its verdict from “Unproven” to “True” regarding the authenticity/existence of the diary based on her testimony, and Newsweek similarly reported that the letter provided authentication that informed their coverage ^{[1] [2]}. Those updates address whether the diary belonged to her and whether the pages published online were hers; they do not amount to court‑admitted forensic evidence publicly released in these stories but rather to her own statement as a form of authentication ^[2].

5. Competing narratives and media framing

Conservative outlets and commentators frame the leaked diary passages as proof of misconduct by Joe Biden or as hypocrisy in media coverage; the PJ Media piece cited republishes explicit interpretations of diary passages and uses them to criticize Democrats’ responses ^[5]. Meanwhile, mainstream outlets and fact‑checkers focus on chain‑of‑custody, whether the diary was stolen, who sold it (Project Veritas paid, per reporting), and prosecutorial decisions — emphasising investigative and legal outcomes over political interpretations ^{[3] [2] [4]}.

6. What available sources do not mention

Available sources in this set do not provide a public, court‑admitted forensic report conclusively proving every specific allegation from the diary nor do they document any new criminal charges against Joe Biden or Ashley Biden arising from diary contents; they also do not detail the Justice Department’s internal reasoning for declining to charge Project Veritas affiliates beyond the one‑sentence public notice ^{[3] [2]}. Claims about specifics of abuse or criminal conduct by individuals are not established in these cited articles; reporting here is limited to authentication of the diary’s existence and the outcome of investigative and legal steps ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

7. Bottom line for readers

The reporting shows Ashley Biden acknowledged harm from the publication of a diary and her letter was used by fact‑checkers to authenticate that the diary and published passages were hers ^{[1] [2]}. Federal investigators examined how the diary was obtained and pursued related prosecutions, but the Justice Department chose not to charge Project Veritas affiliates in February 2025, and the materials provided do not show further criminal findings about the diary’s substantive allegations ^{[3] [4]}. Readers seeking more detail on any factual allegations contained within the diary should note that the sources here distinguish between authentication of authorship and independent proof of contested factual claims ^[2].