Fact check: Did law enforcement investigate the Ashley Biden diary claims and what were the findings?

1. How the FBI opened a criminal probe and followed a paper trail like a crime drama

Federal investigators triggered a criminal probe after a reported burglary and the diary’s appearance in conservative media channels in 2020, with the FBI executing search warrants at locations tied to Project Veritas as part of a broader effort to determine how the diary was obtained and moved ^{[2] [4]}. The Justice Department used traditional investigative tools — search warrants and interviews — to trace the chain of custody from the alleged initial theft to the entities that received the material, reflecting a law-enforcement focus on interstate trafficking of stolen property and potential conspiratorial arrangements to profit from that stolen property ^{[2] [4]}. The presence of search warrants against Project Veritas associates indicates the probe examined both criminal theft and the intermediary actors who handled the diary.

2. Who pleaded guilty and what the convictions say about the crime

Two Florida residents, Aimee Harris and Robert Kurlander, pleaded guilty to conspiring to traffic in stolen goods, admitting to selling the diary for money and thus satisfying the Justice Department’s elements for interstate transportation and trafficking of stolen property ^[1]. Prosecutors presented the plea agreements as a straightforward criminal resolution: the sellers knowingly sold property taken without consent, and the guilty pleas produced cooperation that aided investigators. The criminal outcomes culminated in sentencing for Harris — a short federal jail term and home detention — which prosecutors framed as accountability for actions intended to both profit and politically harm President Joe Biden ^{[5] [6]}.

3. The sentencing: measured punishment and prosecutorial framing

Aimee Harris received a light federal sentence — one month in jail followed by three months’ home detention — after pleading guilty in the trafficking scheme, with prosecutors arguing her conduct was motivated by profit and a desire to influence the 2020 election ^{[6] [5]}. The sentence reflects both the statutory penalties for trafficking stolen property and the plea-bargain dynamics where cooperation often reduces punishment; prosecutors emphasized the political harm dimension, casting the sale to Project Veritas as not merely commercial theft but an act aimed at election disruption ^{[5] [6]}. Defense statements and cooperation terms in the record explain part of the sentencing calculus, while the court’s limited jail time illustrates prosecutorial discretion and sentencing practices in theft-and-trafficking cases.

4. Project Veritas: intermediary, claimant of ethics, and subject of scrutiny

Project Veritas acknowledged receiving the diary but has asserted it was approached by tipsters and at times claimed efforts to return materials, positioning itself as a recipient acting under journalistic claims rather than a conspirator ^{[2] [4]}. Federal searches and the guilty pleas to trafficking put Project Veritas under scrutiny, with investigators examining whether the organization’s handlers knowingly participated in a criminal chain or simply received materials from third parties; Project Veritas disputes criminal culpability and has pursued litigation — including suing media outlets — to push back against reporting that paints its actions as unlawful ^[4]. The differing narratives reflect a legal boundary between receiving leaked materials and participating in theft-based trafficking.

5. Ashley Biden’s confirmation of authenticity and her portrayal of the diary

Ashley Biden filed court papers confirming the diary’s authenticity and describing its contents as personal and subject to misinterpretation, rejecting portrayals that she says distort private reflections into defamatory claims ^{[3] [7]}. Her filing emphasizes that entries reflect personal history and that certain excerpts published or amplified in political contexts mischaracterize her meaning, prompting her to frame the theft and dissemination as a violation of privacy and an act that harmed her and her family ^{[7] [8]}. This confirmation of authenticity narrows some debates — the diary is genuine — while expanding legal and journalistic questions about context, consent, and the public interest in publishing private materials.

6. The big picture: criminal accountability, journalistic lines, and remaining public questions

The criminal investigation produced convictions for sellers and investigative actions targeting intermediaries, establishing law-enforcement accountability for theft and trafficking of the diary, while leaving wider questions about media ethics, the line between receiving and soliciting stolen materials, and the political uses of private documents open to debate ^{[1] [4] [3]}. Prosecutors prioritized cases against those who trafficked the diary, not against news organizations, and civil litigation and public statements fill much of the post-investigation space; the record shows law enforcement enforced criminal statutes on theft and trafficking, while courts and newsrooms continue to wrestle with disclosure, defamation, and privacy implications ^{[6] [2] [7]}.