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.
Fact check: What are the specific allegations Ashley Biden has made against Joe Biden?
Executive Summary
Ashley Biden has publicly confirmed that a personal diary taken from her contained entries in which she questions whether her father, President Joe Biden, engaged in inappropriate conduct or molestation during her childhood, writing phrases including “Was I molested? I think so. (But) I can’t remember,” and describing “probably inappropriate” showers with him, though she also expresses uncertainty and memory gaps [1]. The diary’s authenticity was confirmed in a court filing by Ashley Biden, prosecutions related to the diary’s theft resulted in guilty pleas and sentencing for those who sold it, and the Justice Department later declined to bring charges over its publication—an outcome that has prompted competing interpretations about evidentiary weight, privacy, and political intent [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The Core Allegation That Shaped the Public Record and a Victim’s Own Words
The central claim derived from the diary is that Ashley Biden believed she may have been molested by her father during childhood, captured in the diary line “Was I molested? I think so. (But) I can’t remember,” and additional entries referencing trauma and showering with her father that she described as probably inappropriate; Ashley herself confirmed the diary’s authenticity in a court filing, making those lines attributable to her [1] [5]. The text, as presented in reporting, mixes direct self-questioning and expressions of uncertain memory rather than explicit chronological allegations with detailed allegations of specific acts and dates; the documents available in media reporting are diary entries rather than sworn testimony or formal legal accusations filed against President Joe Biden. The distinction between a private diary’s reflective, fragmented wording and formal legal complaint is central; the available materials show personal trauma-language and uncertainty rather than a fully specified criminal allegation in court.
2. Criminal Cases Over the Diary’s Theft, Sales and Publication—Who Was Prosecuted and What They Pleaded To
Separate from the substantive content of the diary, law enforcement pursued criminal charges against individuals involved in stealing and selling the diary. Aimee Harris and Robert Kurlander pleaded guilty to conspiracy for selling Ashley Biden’s stolen diary to a media outlet, and Harris received sentencing that included a month in prison for stealing the diary [2] [6]. Project Veritas and other conservative outlets factored into the chain of publication; one conservative outlet published the diary contents after minor redactions, raising First Amendment and ethical questions. The Department of Justice later concluded it would not bring charges over the publication of the diary’s contents, a decision that focused legal scrutiny on the theft and sale rather than prosecuting news outlets that printed the stolen material [3]. These prosecutions establish criminality in the theft and sale of the diary, not criminal findings regarding the content of its allegations.
3. How Media Fact-Checks and Court Filings Shifted the Narrative
Fact-checking organizations and court filings changed the narrative by updating assessments once Ashley Biden confirmed authenticity of the diary; Snopes updated an earlier “unproven” rating to “true” after the court filing confirming the diary’s authenticity, moving the public conversation from questions of provenance to questions about content, context and reliability [1]. Reporting emphasized the diary’s themes—recovery from addiction, trauma, and familial relationships—while noting the absence of independent corroboration for the specific molestation claim beyond Ashley’s own diary entries, leaving open questions about how memory, trauma and diary-writing style affect interpretation [7] [5]. The shift in media posture shows how provenance confirmation changes what journalists and fact-checkers consider verifiable: the pages are Ashley’s, but the diary’s reflective, uncertain language requires careful treatment when treated as an evidentiary claim.
4. Two Competing Public Interpretations and Their Apparent Agendas
Public debate has bifurcated along political lines: some commentators treat the diary entries as a credible, alarming allegation demanding further investigation and transparency, while others emphasize the diary’s uncertain phrasing and private nature to caution against weaponizing trauma for political aims [4] [2]. Conservative outlets and commentators used the documents to attack President Biden politically; legal actors and prosecutors focused on the criminality of theft and sale, not on determining a criminal case against the President [4] [3]. Observers should note these agendas when weighing coverage: advocacy outlets amplified the most accusatory readings, while outlets concerned with privacy or journalistic ethics highlighted the theft and potential exploitation of a survivor’s documents.
5. What Is Established, What Remains Unresolved, and Why That Matters
What is established by the publicly available record is that Ashley Biden’s diary is authentic and contains diary entries in which she questions whether she was molested and describes traumatic memories such as “probably inappropriate” showering with her father, and that individuals were prosecuted for stealing and selling the diary; the Department of Justice declined to charge those who published it [1] [5] [2] [3]. What remains unresolved is corroboration beyond Ashley’s own entries—no public court record shows formal criminal charges against President Joe Biden based on these diary entries, and the diary’s fragmentary nature, expression of uncertain memory, and personal context mean it functions as a personal record rather than a legal finding. That distinction—authentic personal allegation versus legal adjudication—is the pivotal unresolved issue shaping public and journalistic responses.