How many of Trump's accusers testified under oath or produced contemporaneous evidence, and which reporters documented those records?

1. Discovery and transcripts: prosecutors disclosed witness testimony and recordings

In at least one federal matter the government’s discovery to the defense explicitly included “transcripts of witness testimony before the grand jury; witness interviews; and copies of the videorecordings from Mar-a-Lago,” demonstrating that contemporaneous records and sworn or recorded witness statements existed in the case files disclosed to defense teams ^[1]. That single-sentence description in a general account of discovery is concrete about the kinds of materials prosecutors turned over, but it does not translate into an accounting of which accusers — nor how many — testified under oath in other civil or criminal matters involving Trump ^[1].

2. News organizations that documented testimony and records in various proceedings

Reporting in this batch shows several outlets covering sworn testimony and documentary evidence: PBS NewsHour and PBS reporting chronicled Trump’s courtroom testimony and depositions in New York civil litigation and explained the role of documentary evidence in those proceedings ^{[4] [5] [6]}; the BBC reported on Trump’s deposition conduct and the fact he answered some questions under oath while invoking the Fifth Amendment repeatedly in others ^[3]; Politico covered judicial steps toward releasing the special counsel’s report and disputes over documents in the classified-materials probe ^[2]; and Wikipedia’s summary of the classified-documents prosecution notes the existence of disclosed transcripts and recordings ^[1]. Those outlets documented specific sworn statements or the existence of contemporaneous records, but none in this selection compiled a cross-case tally of accusers who testified under oath.

3. Limits in the public reporting supplied: no comprehensive tally of accusers testifying or producing contemporaneous proof

The supplied sources plainly show that contemporaneous records and transcriptized testimony exist in particular prosecutions and civil matters ^{[1] [4] [5]}, and they show newsrooms reporting on those records ^{[2] [3]}. What they do not provide is a consolidated accounting listing each accuser, indicating whether that person testified under oath, and cataloging contemporaneous evidence across every allegation made against Trump; that information would require case-by-case review of court dockets, depositions and discovery — material beyond what these reports summarize ^[1].

4. Conflicting narratives and why a precise number is hard to produce from these sources

Some reporting highlights prosecutorial and procedural controversy — for example, Reuters documented broader concerns about errors and credibility problems inside certain Justice Department filings and grand jury presentations, a context that complicates relying on any single set of disclosed materials as definitive proof of allegations ^[7]. Meanwhile, other outlets emphasize documentary evidence and sworn testimony in particular cases ^{[4] [5] [6]}. The consequence is that while the provided reporting confirms sworn testimony and contemporaneous records exist and were reported by named outlets — PBS, BBC, Politico, Reuters, and Wikipedia’s aggregation — it does not permit a reliable, sourced count of “how many” accusers testified under oath or produced contemporaneous evidence across the full sweep of allegations ^{[1] [2] [7] [3] [4]}.