What public records exist of Sascha Riley’s reports to law enforcement or testimony before oversight bodies?
Executive summary
Public reporting collected here shows multiple claims that Sascha Riley provided recorded testimony, shared materials with investigators, and met with oversight aides, but no independently verified public law‑enforcement or congressional records are presented in the reporting provided; several pieces explicitly note the absence of official confirmation [1] [2]. The available public artifacts appear to be audio recordings and media posts asserting that reports were made or materials were delivered, while mainstream authorities have not been quoted as corroborating open investigations or public filings in these sources [3] [2].
1. What the social and independent-publisher reporting says Riley provided to authorities
Multiple social posts and independent publishers state that Riley contacted the FBI, filed local police reports, and shared testimony with House Oversight staff; for example, a social post summarizes those claims directly and says Riley “contacted the FBI, filed local police reports, and testified before the Oversight Committee” [4], while an independent Substack thread reproducing Riley’s interviews describes meetings with House Oversight Committee Democratic aides on September 19, 2025, and asserts documents and recordings were reviewed by those aides [3].
2. What physical or public records are shown in the reporting
The concrete public artifacts appearing in this body of reporting are the recorded audio of Riley’s testimony posted by interviewer Lisa Noelle Volding on Substack and timelines or PDF compilations circulated on social platforms that are derived from that audio [1] [3]. The publisher of those materials also asserts supplementary documents allegedly exist—FBI reports, CPS reports, military reports and court‑martial records—and claims some of those could be obtained by FOIA or investigator request, but the reporting presents those as publisher claims rather than produced, independently verifiable public records [3].
3. What official confirmation or records are absent in these sources
Significantly, the aggregation of reporting includes an explicit note that “so far, no public authority has confirmed an active or completed investigation” despite claims that law enforcement and government offices were contacted [2]. The news summary cautions that while copies of recordings were “shared with law enforcement and other authorities” according to the publisher, no confirming statements from the FBI, local police departments, or congressional offices are provided in the materials collected here [2]. In other words, the available reporting documents assertions that reports were made, but does not produce sealed police reports, case numbers, FBI confirmation, or public congressional hearing records [2] [3].
4. How sources and agendas shape what appears “public”
The bulk of what is publicly accessible in these items comes from self‑published audio and social amplification: Substack audio, threads, timelines, and secondary summaries [1] [4]. Independent publishers and social posters have incentives to maximize exposure for an explosive allegation, and some reporting here self‑documents efforts to preserve and circulate raw testimony—an explicit editorial choice that creates a public record of the testimony itself while stopping short of producing or citing official law‑enforcement docket entries or congressional transcripts [3] [1]. Conversely, a conventional news caution in the reporting warns that reporting unverified claims as facts can cause harm, a reminder that publisher claims about handing materials to authorities are not the same as agency confirmation [2].
5. Bottom line and limits of available evidence
Based on the provided reporting, the verifiable public records currently consist of unredacted audio testimony and derivative summaries published by independent journalists and social users [1] [3], along with repeated claims that reports and materials were delivered to law enforcement and oversight staff [4] [5]. The sources here do not offer direct, independently confirmed law‑enforcement records (police reports, FBI case numbers, or public congressional testimony transcripts) nor do they quote an authoritative agency acknowledging an open or closed investigation [2]. Any further claim that such official records exist would require inspection of agency statements, FOIA returns, or congressional records beyond what these sources provide [2] [3].