What evidence or context did Ashley Biden cite when denying or addressing the diary claims?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Ashley Biden has acknowledged the diary’s existence and, in a court letter, described the entries as “stream-of-consciousness” writings meant for personal healing that were stolen and “grossly misinterpreted,” arguing they have been used to defame her and people she loves [1]. Fact‑checking outlets including Snopes and news reports say Ashley’s testimony and court filings were key to treating the diary’s provenance as authenticated, while she insists context and interpretation of the material have been distorted [2] [3] [1].
1. The core claim: Ashley confirms a diary existed — and objects to how it’s being used
Ashley Biden has written to a federal judge acknowledging that a personal journal of hers was stolen and publicly circulated; she told the court that the journal contains her “innermost thoughts,” that it was intended as private, and that its public release has caused ongoing harm and distortion [1]. Fact‑checkers such as Snopes cite her court letter as the decisive material that moved their assessment from “unproven” to “true” regarding the diary’s authenticity [2] [3].
2. How Ashley characterized the content: “stream‑of‑consciousness” and for healing
In filings and media summaries of her court letter, Ashley described the diary entries as “stream‑of‑consciousness” reflections written during her recovery — private notes for personal healing rather than finished, public claims [1]. She told the judge that others had “once‑grossly misinterpreted” those writings and that their distortion was used to “peddle grotesque lies” about her character and those close to her [1].
3. Legal and criminal context cited by reporting
Reporting notes that the diary entered public view after it was taken from a rehab or halfway house and then sold to Project Veritas; the person convicted in the theft, Aimee Harris, received a sentence including jail time and home confinement, which prosecutors portrayed as part of the chain that led to the diary’s public dissemination [1]. News and fact‑check accounts tie Ashley’s court statement and that prosecution to the broader record that led outlets to treat the diary material as authentic [2] [3] [1].
4. What Ashley says about specific allegations in the pages
Available sources report Ashley’s protest that the diary has been misinterpreted and distorted, but they do not quote her addressing each specific, sensational allegation line‑by‑line in public reporting; instead she framed the material as private reflections and objected to how excerpts were leveraged to defame her and others [1]. Media accounts note their reliance on her letter to the court to authenticate the diary’s existence, not to adjudicate every detailed claim within its pages [2] [3].
5. How independent fact‑checkers used her statements
Snopes and other fact‑checks updated earlier evaluations after reviewing Ashley’s court letter and related public records, saying her testimony provided the missing confirmation that the diary belonged to her; those outlets therefore shifted previous “unproven” ratings to treat the diary’s provenance as established [2] [3]. Those updates distinguish authentication of the journal’s ownership from broader judgments about the truth of every line in the entries [2] [3].
6. Competing narratives and partisan uses
Conservative outlets and commentators have promoted excerpts as substantiation of serious family allegations and used the material politically; Ashley and sympathetic reporting frame the matter as theft and exploitation of private recovery writings [4] [1]. Fact‑checkers and mainstream outlets emphasize the narrow evidentiary point Ashley supplied — that the diary is hers — while also noting that interpretation and selective publication drive the political controversy [2] [3] [1].
7. Limits of the available reporting and what remains unresolved
Current reporting and fact checks establish Ashley Biden’s authorship and her legal statement that the diary was stolen and misused; available sources do not adjudicate every factual claim inside the diary or provide a line‑by‑line rebuttal from Ashley on individual passages [2] [1]. Readers should note the difference between authentication of a private document and verification of every alleged event recounted within it — the former is supported by Ashley’s court letter, the latter is not fully adjudicated in the cited sources [2] [3] [1].
8. What to watch next
Follow court filings, reporting from outlets that published the full letter or prosecution records, and any direct statements from Ashley that address specific passages; fact‑checkers that updated their findings based on her court letter provide a template for how new primary documents can change public assessments [2] [3] [1].