What statements have Joe Biden, Jill Biden, Ashley Biden, and their lawyers made regarding these allegations?

1. What Ashley Biden herself has said — a personal confirmation and trauma claim

Ashley Biden signed a letter to a New York judge in April 2024 confirming the diary’s authenticity and described the publication of her private journal as harmful and re‑traumatizing; she framed herself as a private citizen whose privacy was violated and asserted she was targeted because her father was running for president ^{[1] [2]}. Court filings and reporting corroborate that she provided that letter as part of the criminal case surrounding the theft and sale of her possessions, and she has used legal channels to seek redress and to communicate the personal impact, rather than making broad public policy claims about the content beyond noting her suffering and the intrusiveness of the theft ^{[2] [3]}. This statement is the clearest direct remark from a Biden family member about the diary’s provenance and consequences, and it anchors subsequent legal actions.

2. What Joe Biden has said — private anguish and family focus reported

Reporting that draws on interviews and court records records that Joe Biden has expressed private anguish over his children’s struggles, including emotional reactions such as crying when learning of relapses and broadly worrying about family well‑being during the campaign; these remarks were portrayed as personal reflections rather than direct responses to specific diary allegations ^[5]. The media summaries that note these expressions frame them as humanizing family detail rather than litigation positions; there is no record in the reviewed material of President Biden issuing a detailed public denial or detailed rebuttal addressing specific diary passages, and the White House press office did not provide extensive comment in many accounts ^{[5] [6]}. The family response strategy visible in these sources emphasizes private support and legal remedies rather than public debate over the diary’s content.

3. What Jill Biden has said — support and private stance, limited public comment

Sources indicate First Lady Jill Biden’s role in the family response has been described as supportive and focused on family well‑being, with reporting noting she encouraged the President to run and stood with family during turmoil, but there are no extensive public statements from her directly addressing the diary excerpts or allegations ^[5]. Coverage frames her presence as familial support rather than as a spokesperson issuing substantive denials; no court filings attributed to Jill Biden’s own legal counsel disputing the diary’s contents were cited in the reviewed materials, and the dominant public posture attributed to her is private solidarity rather than public engagement with the allegations ^{[5] [6]}. This distinction matters because it shows a largely legal and privacy‑centered response rather than a public factual rebuttal from the First Lady.

4. Lawyers and official representatives — limited public legal statements, emphasis on prosecutions

Across the reporting and court documents, lawyers for Ashley Biden participated in court proceedings and were present at sentencing, while the White House press office and some family representatives either declined comment or offered limited statements, resulting in few formal public legal denials of diary contents ^{[3] [5] [6]}. The public legal record emphasizes prosecutorial action against Aimee Harris and others who stole and sold the diary — guilty pleas and sentencing for the thieves and the Second Circuit’s affirmation regarding seized materials — rather than litigated civil disputes over the diary’s factual claims, indicating a response channel that prioritizes criminal accountability and privacy remedies ^{[4] [3]}. Statements recorded in news accounts largely document legal steps and the claimant’s trauma letter rather than a suite of lawyerly rebuttals to specific allegations.

5. How media coverage and fact‑checks balance the family statements and the legal record

Fact‑checks and news outlets have aggregated Ashley’s confirmation of authenticity, reported the sale to Project Veritas and the amounts paid, and documented guilty pleas and sentencing for those who stole and sold the diary; these sources show the public record centers on provenance, criminality, and personal impact rather than a contested forensic denial from the Bidens ^{[2] [3] [6]}. Media pieces differ in emphasis — some highlight troubling diary passages and family tragedy, others concentrate on privacy violations and legal consequences — but across them the consistent factual elements are Ashley’s authenticity confirmation, Project Veritas’ purchase, and the convictions of those involved in the theft, with the Bidens’ responses primarily channelled through legal filings and private remarks ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This alignment between court documents and reporting explains why the family’s public voice appears limited and legally focused.