How did the Biden campaign respond to the diary leak in 2020?

1. How the Biden campaign framed the leak: “disinformation” and a distraction

During the 2020 campaign the Biden operation publicly characterized press about the diary and related allegations as disinformation and a campaign tactic designed to distract voters in the final stretch; the House Oversight report quotes the campaign as denying the allegations and labeling the story “disinformation” ^[1]. That response fits a common crisis playbook: deny the substantive allegations, cast them as politically motivated, and try to move public attention back to the campaign’s message — an approach the Oversight Committee report records the campaign used ^[1].

2. What conservative outlets published and who supplied the material

A right‑wing site, the National File, published what it said was Ashley Biden’s diary in October–November 2020; reporting by outlets such as The Intercept and later fact‑checks traced the published copy to a source connected to Project Veritas, which reportedly obtained the diary and at times debated publishing it ^{[2] [3] [4]}. Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe has said the group tried to return the diary to a lawyer and later provided it to law enforcement; Project Veritas itself did not publish the diary ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Criminal theft, prosecution, and the legal aftermath

Federal prosecutors later charged people involved in stealing and selling the diary. Aimee Harris pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a month in prison for stealing and selling Ashley Biden’s diary; another co‑defendant, Robert Kurlander, also pleaded guilty and cooperated with investigators ^{[3] [6] [5]}. Reporting indicates prosecutors examined whether Project Veritas knew the diary had been illegally obtained, but as of reporting Project Veritas and O’Keefe had not been charged ^{[4] [5]}.

4. How media and fact‑checkers treated the contents and authenticity

Fact‑checking outlets (for example Snopes and other reports) and later journalism documented that the diary included intimate entries about recovery and questions about past trauma; some reporting concluded Project Veritas likely had possessed an authentic diary though outlets cautioned about the limits of verification and the ethics of publication ^{[2] [7]}. Newsweek and others summarized the chain of custody allegations and the $40,000 payment Project Veritas reportedly made for the material, citing court and reporting sources ^{[3] [8]}.

5. Competing perspectives and unresolved questions

There are competing claims: conservative publishers emphasized the diary’s passages as politically damaging; the Biden campaign labeled the story disinformation and sought to minimize its political impact ^[1]. Investigations established the diary was taken and sold — leading to guilty pleas — but reporting also notes unanswered legal and ethical questions about who within Project Veritas saw or handled the diary and whether the organization understood the manner in which it had been obtained ^{[4] [5]}. Available sources do not mention any campaign legal filings or public admissions beyond the campaign’s denial; courts and prosecutors pursued the theft perpetrators rather than the campaign ^{[3] [5]}.

6. Why the campaign’s response mattered politically

Labeling the leak as disinformation reframed the story from one about family material to one about coordinated political dirty‑tricks, shifting the narrative to questions of source credibility and criminality — a useful move given that prosecutors subsequently focused on the theft and sale ^{[1] [3]}. The campaign’s messaging aligned with subsequent reporting that the diary was stolen and sold to conservative actors, which undercut the story’s potency as a straightforward exposé ^{[3] [5]}.

7. Bottom line and reporting limits

The record in available reporting shows the Biden campaign denied and labeled the diary story disinformation and a distraction ^[1]; investigative and court reporting later established the diary had been stolen and sold and traced links to Project Veritas and the National File, while Project Veritas did not publish the diaries and was not charged ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Available sources do not mention any different public response from the Biden campaign beyond denial and characterization as disinformation, nor do they document internal campaign strategies beyond those public statements ^[1].