Have any congressional committees or federal agencies publicly acknowledged receiving testimony from Sascha/Sasha Riley?

1. What the supplied reporting actually shows

All four items in the packet are social posts in which individuals claim to have listened to or reviewed Sascha Riley’s testimony and in some cases assert that the testimony was delivered to a “Democrat oversight committee” or the “Oversight Committee,” and that Riley contacted the FBI and filed local police reports ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. The posts express strong emotional reactions and beliefs in Riley’s account, and at least one explicitly says the testimony was “given to the democrat oversight committee” ^[2] while another states Riley “testified before the Oversight Committee” ^[1]. Those are claims made by individual users on Threads and similar platforms, not by the institutions named in those claims (p1_s1–p1_s4).

2. What would count as a public acknowledgment — and what’s missing

A verifiable public acknowledgment from a congressional committee or a federal agency typically appears as a press release, an official hearing transcript, a published witness list, a committee statement, or a public filing from the agency itself. None of the supplied sources contains or links to such an institutional document; they are opinionated reposts and personal reactions asserting institutional receipt of testimony rather than reproducing an institutional announcement (p1_s1–p1_s4). Therefore, within the constraints of the provided reporting, there is no direct evidence of an official, named committee or federal agency publicly confirming receipt of testimony from Sascha/Sasha Riley (p1_s1–p1_s4).

3. How the social posts frame the claim and why that matters

The posts present consistent narratives: listeners describe Riley’s audio testimony as “horrific,” “credible,” and “recorded audio,” and some writers state Riley named names or delivered his account to an oversight body ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. Social reporting like this can create the perception that formal institutions have acted because the posters reference committees and the FBI; however, the posts do not show committee rosters, subpoenas, hearing calendars, or official FBI acknowledgments that would establish institutional receipt or handling (p1_s1–p1_s4). The difference between a crowd’s claim that testimony exists and an agency’s confirmation that it has been received and logged is material for accountability and subsequent investigation.

4. Alternative explanations and reporting limitations

It is possible — outside the scope of the supplied posts — that testimony or evidence was provided to officials through channels that have not been publicly disclosed by the agencies; the dataset here simply does not include any such official confirmation. That is a limitation of the reporting provided: absence of an institutional statement in these social posts is not proof that no agency or committee has received material, only that these sources do not include a public acknowledgment from one (p1_s1–p1_s4). Any definitive answer about official receipt would require checking committee press releases, public hearing records, witness lists, or agency statements, none of which are present in the four provided items.

5. Bottom line

Based solely on the four social‑media posts supplied for analysis, there is no public, official acknowledgment by a named congressional committee or federal agency that it received testimony from Sascha/Sasha Riley; what exists in the provided reporting are third‑party claims and reactions asserting that such testimony was given or passed to oversight, not institutional confirmations (p1_s1–p1_s4). To move beyond these social posts and verify whether a committee or agency has formally received testimony, the next step is to consult official committee websites, hearing transcripts, public records, or agency press releases — none of which were included among the supplied sources (p1_s1–p1_s4).