Are the The pages of the Ashley Biden Diary where she says she was molested and showered with her dad Public for us to see.

1. What was published and where it appeared

In October–November 2020 a conservative blog, the National File, published what it said was a copy of Ashley Biden’s diary including an entry describing childhood showers with her father as “probably not appropriate,” and those published pages have since been re‑circulated online and cited in various articles and social posts ^{[1] [5]}. Reporting and aggregations of that publication show the content was treated as a document of public interest by some outlets and commentators, and screenshots and reproductions of the diary pages were copied across social platforms and conservative media ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Who provided the pages to the public and how they got out

Investigations and later reporting make clear the chain of custody traces to Project Veritas: a Project Veritas employee provided the alleged diary to the National File in October 2020 after Project Veritas itself had reservations about publishing it, and Project Veritas paid for a copy, with reporting noting a roughly $40,000 transaction for the material ^[1]. Project Veritas ultimately did not publish the diary on its own platforms, but its involvement is central to the provenance story that led to the National File’s publication and the wider dissemination of the pages ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Law enforcement, court records and authentication claims

The FBI investigated the theft and sale of the diary and later prosecuted individuals accused of stealing and selling it; federal filings about the theft do not confirm the diary’s contents, and the FBI did not publicly authenticate the specific sexual‑content allegations tied to the pages even as it pursued theft charges ^{[3] [7]}. Separate court proceedings and plea agreements did, according to some reporting, establish that the stolen property belonged to Ashley Biden and clarified parts of the chain of custody; fact‑checking outlets say those legal records and a letter from Ashley Biden to the court have been cited as evidence supporting authentication in later assessments ^{[2] [4]}.

4. How reliable is the published material and what experts say

Independent fact‑checkers including Snopes, PolitiFact and others have repeatedly urged caution: while the physical existence of a diary and the fact of its theft are supported by prosecutions and reporting, the provenance, selective publication, and political motives of intermediaries like Project Veritas and the National File complicate claims that the pages were independently verified before publication ^{[5] [1] [3]}. Snopes’s later updates indicate that Ashley Biden’s court letter provided additional authentication for the pages, but that development came after years of dispute and after the material had been used in political attacks — an important context when weighing the public circulation of intimate, contested materials ^[4].

5. Stakes, agendas and what remains unclear

The publication was propagated primarily by partisan outlets and actors with clear political incentives to amplify scandalous material about the president’s family, which raises an implicit agenda question about why and how those specific pages were made public ^{[6] [8]}. What remains less clear from the public record available here is the full chain of originals versus copies, what independent forensic document analysis — if any — was publicly shared, and how Ashley Biden herself characterizes the leaked passages beyond filings cited in fact‑checks; reporting shows legal ownership and theft were established, but independent forensic authentication details are not fully documented in the sources provided ^{[2] [4]}.