Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the origin of Ashley Biden's diary and the shower claims?
Executive Summary
1. Quick finding: The diary attributed to Ashley Biden was stolen from a Florida residence and sold to Project Veritas; the theft and sale resulted in guilty pleas and sentencing of individuals involved, while questions about the diary’s provenance and contents persisted until Ashley Biden’s own court filing acknowledged the diary and some described passages [1] [2] [3] [4]. 2. Core contention: The most contested claim — that the diary includes an entry saying showers with her father were "probably not appropriate" — was later affirmed as reflecting Ashley Biden’s writings in a court letter, but independent forensic publication and broad law-enforcement confirmation of every contested entry were not uniformly documented in public records [5] [6] [7].
1. How the diary came into the public eye — a theft-for-sale operation
The public trail begins with the diary’s removal from a Delray Beach property and subsequent sale to conservative operatives. Court proceedings and news reports show at least one Florida woman, Aimee Harris, admitted stealing the diary and selling it to Project Veritas for money; prosecutors pursued charges and Harris received incarceration and home confinement as part of sentencing, and related prosecutions produced plea agreements tied to the transaction [1] [2] [8]. This chain of custody matters legally and for credibility because the items surfaced through a criminal sale rather than a transparent journalistic or archival transfer, a fact emphasized in reporting and legal filings and relevant to debates over motive, handling, and potential alteration prior to any public release [1] [3].
2. What was in the diary and Ashley Biden’s authentication
Initial public postings by outlets on the right published excerpts but faced immediate scrutiny over authenticity. For months the FBI did not publicly authenticate the content in detail, and Project Veritas declined to publish a full verified transcript citing concerns, while other outlets later released digital versions [3] [7]. The decisive development came when Ashley Biden filed a letter in court acknowledging the diary and confirming authorship of passages, including a line characterizing childhood showers with her father as "probably not appropriate," which brought direct personal authentication into the public record and moved the factual assessment from contested reporting toward explicit admission by the diary’s owner [4] [6].
3. How different outlets reported and why narratives diverged
Coverage split along institutional lines: mainstream fact-checkers and outlets emphasized gaps in forensic verification and cautioned about chain-of-custody problems, while conservative publications highlighted the diary’s contents immediately and treated later confirmation as vindication [3] [6]. This divergence reflected differing priorities: some organizations prioritized official forensic confirmation and prosecutorial statements, while others prioritized document content and subsequent acknowledgment by Ashley Biden. The result was a fractured public understanding where legal and journalistic standards collided with partisan dissemination paths, and readers got different emphases depending on the outlet consulted [1] [5].
4. Legal outcomes and what they do — and don’t — establish
Courts prosecuted individuals for theft and sale of the diary; plea deals and sentencing confirmed criminal handling of private property and financial transactions tied to its dissemination, not the truth of every written claim contained within the diary itself [1] [8]. A criminal conviction for stealing the diary establishes wrongdoing in the acquisition and sale, but it does not independently corroborate every substantive claim in the diary beyond the owner’s own statements. Law-enforcement commentary in public materials focused on the theft and recovery rather than a forensic endorsement of each passage’s factual accuracy, leaving room for legitimate distinction between provenance and content verification [3].
5. The record now and what remains unresolved
With Ashley Biden’s court letter acknowledging the diary and specific passages, the principal point about her authorship and that quoted line is now grounded in a primary-source admission; however, wider claims extrapolating from isolated diary passages about other individuals or alleging criminal conduct beyond what the diary literally states remain legally and factually unproven in public records [4] [6]. The major unresolved issue is the scope of independent forensic validation and the degree to which political actors who circulated extracts may have selectively framed or amplified passages for partisan purposes. Readers should treat provenance as legally confirmed for the theft and owner-authentication as provided by Ashley Biden’s filing, while distinguishing those facts from broader allegations that lack separate public verification [2] [7].