What do fact-checking sites say about the Biden shower story?

1. How the central claims crystallized and why they mattered

The principal claims that circulated were twofold: first, that Ashley Biden kept a diary whose contents were leaked or sold; second, that the diary included entries alleging she showered with her father and that this was “probably not appropriate.” Fact-checkers trace the provenance of these claims through court documents and media reporting showing that the diary material was shared and sold by third parties, and that Ashley Biden wrote a letter to a New York judge acknowledging the diary’s authenticity and describing harm from its publication. That verification of diary authenticity is distinct from an independent forensic confirmation of every quoted line or a law-enforcement finding of wrongdoing, making the situation legally and evidentially complex ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What mainstream fact-checkers reported and where they diverge

Snopes, among others, reported that Ashley Biden’s own court letter confirmed the diary’s authenticity and cited the passage about showers as present in the diary, noting the phrasing “probably not appropriate” ^[3]. PolitiFact and other outlets, however, stressed that the FBI’s announcement of a plea deal involving people who stole and sold the diary did not confirm the diary’s contents nor name the Bidens; the FBI’s public statement focused on the criminal conduct of the sellers, not on verifying personal allegations contained in the material ^[4]. Fact-checkers therefore converged on diary authenticity while diverging on the extent to which government agencies verified content. This split explains much of the public confusion ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

3. The documentary trail: court filings, Project Veritas and the FBI’s role

Reporting and fact-checkers cite three documentary threads: Ashley Biden’s court letter admitting the diary’s authenticity; Project Veritas’ role in publishing or circulating diary excerpts; and an FBI criminal case resolving in plea deals with individuals accused of stealing and selling the diary material. Ashley’s letter and court proceedings serve as the most direct source confirming the diary’s provenance, while the Project Veritas connection explains how excerpts entered public circulation. The FBI’s involvement related to theft and sale, not to validation of sensitive family-content claims, a distinction fact-checkers emphasize when noting what the bureau did and did not say in public statements ^{[1] [4]}.

4. Which specific quotes are confirmed, which are disputed

Fact-checkers found that while the diary itself is real per Ashley Biden’s statement, some widely shared quotes have no supporting text in the documents—for example, claims that she said she “feared” her father coming into the shower were reported as lacking evidence in the primary documents according to Snopes’ deeper review ^[5]. At the same time, Snopes and other verifiers identified an entry that references showering with her father described as “probably not appropriate,” which matches court-noted passages. The difference between a confirmed phrase and an amplified or altered quote is central to assessing truthfulness; the record supports the former but not all viral attributions ^{[5] [3]}.

5. The broader context and remaining uncertainties readers should weigh

The key takeaways are that public verification is partial and context-dependent: Ashley Biden’s affidavit or letter confirms a diary and some entries, fact-checkers corroborate the presence of a shower-related passage, and the FBI prosecuted theft and sale of the diary without endorsing its content. Open questions include the full content of the diary beyond cited excerpts, whether additional corroborating evidence exists for any misconduct allegations, and how selective public release shaped interpretation. Mediation of these facts by outlets with differing agendas—political actors, Project Veritas, advocacy groups, and mainstream fact-checkers—has affected perception. Readers should treat diary authenticity and allegation validity as related but distinct factual claims, each warranting different standards of proof ^{[1] [4] [3]}.