What other personal entries are in Ashley Biden's diary?

Executive summary

The available analyses agree that Ashley Biden’s diary contains highly personal material about addiction recovery and alleged sexual trauma, but the scope and authenticity of specific entries were contested for years and only later acknowledged in court filings and by Biden herself in correspondence ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting diverges on how much of the diary was published, who vetted it, and the reliability of excerpts circulated by partisan outlets during the 2020 campaign; those disputes shape how different outlets and fact-checkers treated the material ^{[3] [4] [5]}. This report extracts the key claims, shows which items are corroborated in public records, outlines the publication chain and partisan uses, and highlights what remains unverified or omitted from public record ^{[6] [7]}.

1. What people claimed the diary contained — a tidy list of the explosive allegations

Multiple analyses list a consistent set of allegations attributed to the diary: entries about Ashley Biden’s addiction recovery, descriptions of sexual trauma, reflections that she felt “hyper-sexualized” at a young age, and a passage describing childhood showers with her father she later called “probably not appropriate” ^{[4] [5]}. Reporting also notes non-personal items seized alongside the diary — tax records and private family photos — that broadened the document trove and complicated news decisions about publication ^[3]. Conservative outlets circulated alleged excerpts, and right-leaning actors attempted to monetize and distribute the diary during the 2020 campaign; others withheld publication citing verification challenges ^{[1] [3]}. These claims became focal points in court filings and media fact-checks over 2024–2025 ^{[2] [7]}.

2. What is corroborated in public records and court materials — pieces that withstood scrutiny

By 2024–2025, public records show the physical trajectory of the diary: it was stolen in 2020, sold to conservative actors including Project Veritas, and the thief, Aimee Harris, pleaded guilty and was sentenced for transporting stolen property ^{[1] [6]}. Fact-checkers and court filings later referenced Ashley Biden’s own correspondence and testimony, which acknowledged elements of the diary’s content, leading fact-check outlets to treat certain passages as authenticated — notably material about addiction recovery and references to being sexually traumatized and showering with her father, which she characterized as “probably not appropriate” in a letter to a judge ^{[2] [7]}. Those confirmations narrowed, but did not eliminate, questions about the provenance of every published excerpt ^[4].

3. How the diary excerpts spread — a partisan publication chain and verification gaps

The diary’s public life was shaped by a market for sensational material during the closing days of the 2020 campaign. The thief tried to sell the diary to multiple conservative recipients and Project Veritas purchased material but did not publish it fully, citing verification problems; other right-wing sites later published alleged excerpts with minimal redactions ^{[1] [3]}. Mainstream outlets initially withheld unverified material, and fact-checkers flagged discrepancies and the absence of independent verification for many circulating passages ^{[1] [4]}. The partisan chain from theft to selective publication explains both why some claims spread quickly online and why authoritative outlets focused on verifying a narrower set of claims tied to court evidence ^{[3] [5]}.

4. How different outlets framed the material — partisan lenses and fact-check responses

Conservative publishers emphasized salacious or damaging images of Biden family life to sway voters, while mainstream outlets and fact-checkers prioritized legal documents and Ashley Biden’s own statements, resulting in divergent narratives about what the diary “proved” ^{[3] [4]}. Fact-check sites in 2024–2025 confirmed parts of the diary where Ashley Biden’s court correspondence corroborated excerpts, but they also warned that many online reproductions remained unverified or edited, and that publication choices were influenced by partisan incentives ^{[2] [7]}. The result is a media record where some claims are authenticated and others remain open; readers encountered both confirmed passages and unvetted reproductions depending on the outlet ^{[5] [6]}.

5. What remains unknown and why it matters for public understanding

Despite authenticated fragments, critical questions remain: comprehensive authentication of every excerpt published by third parties was never publicly completed, and the full diary’s contents were not made available to neutral verifiers, leaving gaps about context, redactions, and chronology ^{[1] [4]}. Legal outcomes focused on the theft and sale of the diary rather than a line-by-line public adjudication of the text, so public understanding relies on partial confirmations ^[6]. The partisan publication chain and commercial incentives that propelled selective excerpts into the political arena mean the public record mixes verified admissions, contested passages, and uncorroborated reproductions, which is why responsible outlets limited reporting to corroborated content tied to court records and Ashley Biden’s statements ^{[7] [3]}.

Bottom line: the core personal themes reported from Ashley Biden’s diary — addiction recovery and allegations of sexual trauma, including the “probably not appropriate” shower reference — are corroborated in court filings and her own correspondence, but the diary’s complete contents were never comprehensively published or independently authenticated, leaving partisan publication practices and verification gaps central to how the material circulated and was understood ^{[2] [1] [3]}.