Which reputable news organizations have independently verified claims that Sascha Riley submitted testimony or evidence to U.S. congressional committees?
Executive summary
No major, reputable U.S. news organizations have independently verified that Sascha (also spelled Sasha or Sascha) Riley submitted testimony or evidence to U.S. congressional committees; the available coverage consists largely of regional and international outlets relaying viral audio and Substack material while noting those claims remain unverified [1] [2]. The specific assertion that Riley “has provided testimony to the House Oversight Committee” appears in social posts and in material published via Substack and threads, but that claim is reported as unverified by mainstream summaries cited here [3] [1].
1. How the claim entered public circulation and who is repeating it
Audio recordings attributed to Riley spread widely on social platforms and were published on Substack by a user named Lisa Noelle Voldeng, with posts and social threads asserting Riley’s allegations and his statement that he had provided testimony to the House Oversight Committee [1] [3]; multiple outlets summarizing the viral material—Hindustan Times, Times Now and News24—have recounted those social claims while noting they originate from the Substack/audio uploads rather than from verified congressional records [4] [1] [5].
2. What reputable outlets have said — and not said — about congressional submissions
None of the cited, more established outlets in the provided reporting—Hindustan Times, Times Now, News24—report independent confirmation from congressional officials, court records, or congressional docket filings that Riley formally submitted testimony or documentary evidence to a committee; these outlets explicitly flag the recordings and associated claims as unverified or lacking corroboration in official records [1] [2] [5]. Times Now specifically noted the material is “currently unverified, circulating via Substack and social media, with no confirmation from courts or mainstream investigations” [1], and Hindustan Times repeated that names alleged in recordings “don't exist in terms of indictments, court records, and verified probes” [2].
3. Social-media posts and forums versus institutional confirmation
A widely-shared threads post and Substack excerpts state Riley alleged he had provided testimony to the House Oversight Committee, but those are social-media claims rather than documentation produced by congressional clerks or committee releases [3]. Online forums and sites repeating the narrative report that Riley “has tried to go to the Congressional Oversight committee” or is willing to provide statements, which underscores the difference between intent, asserted submission and formal, logged congressional testimony [6] [5].
4. Related official context cited by reporting
One piece of context offered by the reporting is that congressional committees have released large troves of Epstein-related material in the past—Hindustan Times referenced a congressional release of more than 20,000 pages of Epstein-related emails and messages—but that historic release is separate from and not evidence for Riley’s claimed submission [4]. The sources make clear that while congressional document releases have occurred in the Epstein inquiry, none of the cited reporting links Riley’s name to a publicly available congressional filing or an acknowledged witness list [4] [1] [2].
5. Bottom line: what can be responsibly reported now
Based on the collected reporting provided, no reputable news organization has independently verified that Sascha/Sasha Riley submitted testimony or evidence to a U.S. congressional committee; the claim exists in viral Substack audio and social posts and is treated as unverified by outlets that summarized the material [1] [2] [5]. If congressional confirmation appears later, it would require either an official committee statement, an entry in a congressional hearing record, or reporting by established outlets that cite those primary documents; that confirmation is not present in the supplied sources [1] [4].