Sasha Riley story about being with Trump
Executive summary
A set of audio recordings attributed to Sasha (also spelled Sascha) Riley has circulated widely claiming he was abused as a child within a network tied to Jeffrey Epstein and that high-profile figures, including Donald Trump, were involved; these recordings were published on Substack by Lisa Noelle Voldeng and amplified across social platforms [1] [2]. The material is being received in two competing ways—some survivors and commentators express belief and horror at the tapes, while news outlets and fact‑checking voices emphasize that the allegations remain unverified by courts or mainstream investigations [3] [1] [4].
1. What the audio alleges and how it surfaced
The audio attributed to Sasha Riley presents detailed, disturbing allegations that he was adopted in 1977, abused starting in childhood by relatives and later between ages nine and thirteen allegedly within what the postings describe as a Trump/Epstein criminal network, and that he served in the U.S. Army and is a veteran of the Iraq War, according to multiple reports summarizing the tapes [5] [2] [1]. The files were publicized through a Substack post by Lisa Noelle Voldeng and then spread on Threads, social media and alternative Substacks, where the material was described as “testimony” and in some posts accompanied by claims that Riley was willing to testify and undergo a lie detector test [1] [2] [3].
2. Names, scope and specific accusations claimed
Summaries of the recordings circulating online say they name multiple prominent political figures—reports list President Donald Trump among others—and tie them to extreme abuse in the Epstein orbit, with some posts even alleging criminal acts beyond sexual abuse, including violence and coerced acts [1] [6]. The publications promoting the audio also assert the existence of corroborating materials, ranging from purported CPS and FBI reports to alleged video evidence and military documents that proponents say can be obtained through FOIA requests [4].
3. Verification status and mainstream response
Multiple news outlets covering the story emphasize that the recordings and their claims are circulating widely but remain unverified by courts, official indictments, or mainstream investigative agencies, and fact‑checking sites have urged caution while noting they have not been able to authenticate the material [1] [4]. Reporting about the Substack release notes questions about how the material was obtained and underscores that, as of these reports, there is no public record of these allegations being litigated or corroborated through standard investigative channels [2] [1].
4. Public reaction: belief, trauma testimony and skepticism
The audio has prompted visceral reactions: some survivors and commentators have publicly said the recordings moved them deeply and expressed belief in Riley’s account, with at least one writer on Threads explicitly saying they believed Riley and were emotionally affected by the testimony [3]. Conversely, commentators and cautious outlets have pointed out the lack of independent verification, the involvement of partisan platforms and circuits that frequently amplify sensational material, and urged restraint until corroboration is produced [4] [1].
5. Possible motives, distribution channels and implicit agendas
The material’s publication on Substack and rapid spread via social platforms suggests a distribution path outside traditional editorial gatekeeping, which can amplify both marginalized testimonies and poorly corroborated claims; some publishers promoting the tapes frame them as suppressed truth while critics warn of political utility in targeting public figures ahead of elections or trials [2] [4]. Reporting also highlights the figure of Lisa Noelle Voldeng as the leaker/publisher, and notes questions about provenance that feed narratives on both sides—those calling for accountability and those calling for verification [2].
6. Bottom line for readers and researchers
The recordings attributed to Sasha Riley make grave accusations involving Jeffrey Epstein’s network and name Donald Trump among others, and they have been posted publicly via Substack and amplified on social media, generating strong reactions from survivors and commentators [1] [2] [3]. However, major outlets and fact‑checkers currently treat the claims as allegations without court‑verified corroboration, and available reporting documents the provenance and emotional impact but does not establish legal or investigative confirmation [1] [4].