What specific allegations involve Joe Biden and his daughter Jill Biden or Ashley Biden?

Executive summary — what the record actually alleges and what it does not: The public record distinguishes three separate threads: disputed claims about when Joe Biden and Jill Biden began dating, authenticated diary entries from Ashley Biden describing childhood showers with her father as “probably not appropriate,” and broader Oversight Committee inquiries into Biden family foreign business dealings that center on Hunter Biden rather than Jill or Ashley. Key criminal or civil findings are limited: the diary was authenticated by Ashley in court filings and the person who stole it pleaded guilty; investigators have reported transactions involving other family members but no conclusive legal finding tying President Joe Biden to criminal wrongdoing ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}.

1. The old narrative about Jill Biden as a “teenage babysitter” resurfaces — what’s provable and what’s false: Claims that Jill Biden was Joe Biden’s teenage babysitter when they started dating are demonstrably false according to contemporaneous and retrospective accounts showing Jill was in her early twenties and Joe in his early thirties when their relationship began in 1975. These claims have been debunked and challenged directly by the Bidens and multiple fact-checks; alternative assertions from Jill’s ex-husband that the relationship began earlier emerged in the context of a book and have been publicly denied by Jill as fictitious and aimed at promoting that book, highlighting a possible agenda behind the claim ^{[1] [2] [8]}.

2. Ashley Biden’s diary: authenticated excerpts, criminal theft, and legal confirmation: A separate dossier of allegations centers on a diary authored by Ashley Biden that reportedly contains entries describing childhood showers with her father as “probably not appropriate.” Ashley Biden confirmed the diary’s authenticity in a letter to a New York judge, and the provenance of the diary became a criminal matter after Aimee Harris stole it and sold it to Project Veritas for $20,000; Harris pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport stolen property and received a one-month sentence. These facts establish chain-of-custody and legal consequences for the theft, and confirm that some diary passages were presented and acknowledged in court filings ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

3. What the diary’s contents do and do not establish about Joe Biden’s conduct: The authenticated diary entries describe Ashley’s perceptions of past events, including showers with her father she characterized as “probably not appropriate.” The record shows Ashley authenticated the document and the diary has been the subject of fact-checking and courtroom reference. The existence and authentication of such passages do not, by themselves, equate to a formal criminal finding against Joe Biden; they report a private account and have been treated as evidence or a statement within procedural filings rather than as the basis for independent criminal charges against the President ^{[3] [5]}.

4. The Oversight Committee and influence‑peddling allegations — focus on Hunter, not Jill or Ashley: Congressional Oversight inquiries and public reporting have focused on alleged influence-peddling tied to foreign business dealings involving Hunter Biden and other family members. These investigations catalog complex financial transactions and receipts from foreign entities, and while they allege potential risks of compromised access or conflicts of interest, they have not produced conclusive evidence directly implicating President Joe Biden or establishing criminal liability by him. The Oversight material centers on Hunter’s activities and amounts reportedly paid to family associates, with no definitive legal finding against the President in the documents summarized ^{[6] [9] [7]}.

5. Partisan context matters: sources, motives, and unresolved questions: The record shows multiple actors with clear incentives: a former spouse publishing a book, a conservative organization (Project Veritas) purchasing stolen material, and congressional panels pursuing investigations that have been characterized in partisan terms. Fact-checks and legal records corroborate certain factual threads (dating timelines, diary authentication, theft conviction), while other allegations—especially broad influence-peddling claims tied to the President—remain contested and unproven in court. The interplay of criminal convictions for theft, authenticated personal documents, and politically charged investigations explains why public interpretations diverge sharply even as specific documentary facts are established ^{[2] [4] [7]}.