Did Ashley Biden

1. What happened to the diary — the basic timeline

Reporting describes that Ashley Biden left personal items, including a diary, at a Delray Beach residence in spring 2020; those items were later taken by others and the diary was sold for $40,000 to Project Veritas after an earlier failed offer to sell it to the Trump 2020 campaign ^{[1] [4]}. Project Veritas ultimately did not publish the diary itself, but parts or copies appeared on outlets such as The National File; prosecutors say the theft and sale led to criminal charges against those involved ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

2. Legal outcome: theft, plea and sentence

Aimee Harris — the woman who admitted stealing and selling the diary — pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one month in federal prison and three months of home confinement, according to multiple outlets ^{[2] [3]}. Court filings and reporting also describe that prosecutors and the court treated the matter as the unauthorized taking and sale of personal property belonging to Ashley Biden ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Authenticity and fact‑checking: contested but reported as corroborated in places

Fact‑checking outlets and some reporting have moved over time in their assessments. Snopes and other fact checks have discussed evidence such as Project Veritas’ chain of acquisition and court testimony, and noted that Project Veritas paid $40,000 — points that support the diary’s provenance in some reporting ^[4]. Newsweek summarized that Snopes changed a verdict on an authenticity assessment from “Unproven” to “True,” and that this shift prompted debate across the media ecosystem ^[3]. At the same time, Project Veritas did not itself publish the diary, and different outlets have treated the document and its contents with varying degrees of confirmation ^{[1] [3]}.

4. What’s in the diary and how outlets treated sensitive claims

News accounts and summaries say the diary reportedly contained writings about Ashley Biden’s recovery from substance use and personal reflections; some of the most inflammatory claims circulating online generated partisan reaction and were amplified by conservative commentators ^{[2] [1]}. Major news outlets and fact‑checkers have cautioned about how leaked, stolen, or selectively published personal documents are used politically, and noted differences between what was alleged on partisan sites and what has been verifiably established in public records ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

5. Political fallout and partisan amplification

Conservative commentators and some Republican politicians used the diary story to attack President Biden or suggest broader cover‑ups; for example, Marjorie Taylor Greene and online accounts amplified the scandal in political contexts ^[1]. Conversely, outlets documenting the theft and prosecution framed it as a criminal act against a private citizen; reporting emphasizes both the illegality of the theft and the political weaponization of intimate material ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Limitations, disputed points, and what reporting does not (yet) say

Available sources differ on the degree to which specific diary entries have been independently authenticated in public forensic detail; some outlets report provenance through payments and court testimony, but full public forensic disclosures are not uniformly reported in the materials provided here ^{[4] [3]}. Sources do not provide a single, universally agreed forensic certification in these excerpts — available sources do not mention a comprehensive, public forensic report confirming every contested entry ^{[4] [3]}. Claims on fringe or partisan sites that exceed what mainstream outlets report should be treated as unverified given these gaps ^{[1] [4]}.

7. How journalists and readers should approach the record

Journalists should distinguish between: (a) criminal facts — that the diary was stolen and sold and that Aimee Harris was sentenced ^[2]; (b) provenance evidence — which includes a documented sale to Project Veritas and court testimony ^[4]; and (c) content claims — which have been variably reported and remain sensitive and partly contested ^{[1] [3]}. Readers should weigh the documented legal outcome and chain of custody against partisan amplification and note that authentication and selective publication have been subject to differing editorial standards ^{[4] [3]}.

If you want, I can compile and compare direct quotes from the court filings and the Project Veritas testimony cited in Snopes and Newsweek to show which specific assertions are corroborated and which remain disputed in the public record ^{[4] [3]}.