A decorated Iraq war veteran named Sascha Riley is publicly claiming to have been trafficked as a child within what is described as a Trump/Epstein criminal enterprise—and their detailed testimony names some of the most powerful figures in American politics, including Donald Trump, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Republican congressmen.
The allegations are unverified. Mainstream media hasn’t touched it. But the testimony exists, published in full on Substack by researcher Lisa Noelle Voldeng, complete with hours of testimony in six unedited audio recordings.
And the claims are so explosive—and so horrific—that the silence around them feels almost as significant as the testimony itself.
WHAT’S BEING ALLEGED
Riley claims to have been adopted in 1977 specifically for the purpose of trafficking, by a man named William Kyle Riley, who allegedly worked as a pilot and trafficker within the Trump/Epstein network. According to the testimony, Riley was trafficked from approximately ages 9 to 13 within this ring, and to relatives starting around age 6.
The perpetrators Riley is willing to testify against?
Donald Trump, Andy Biggs, Jim Jordan, Lindsey Graham, and Clarence Thomas.
The testimony includes descriptions of being forced to perform in child pornography films—including, Riley alleges, a snuff film in which they witnessed a girl being shot and killed during filming.
After another shoot, they recalls hearing gunshots from another room. When they showed fear, he says a perpetrator told him: “Don’t worry. Boys are hard to find.”
On Clarence Thomas specifically, Riley’s testimony is chilling: “Seeing Clarence Thomas there really stood out, but what cements that in my brain was the celebration that my dad had when he got confirmed onto the Supreme Court, and how excited he was to have a person as high as the Supreme Court that was involved in all of it as sort of a buffer.”
“I remember my dad specifically saying, ‘that’s a lifetime appointment.'”
THE DOCUMENTATION
Voldeng, who recorded the testimony herself, states she has distributed copies to police and “trusted allies in several countries.” She claims corroborating evidence exists: pornography films, CPS reports, FBI reports on the father, and a military report involving a court-martial of a soldier found with child pornography allegedly depicting Riley and another victim named Samantha.
According to Voldeng, she contacted Senator Wyden’s office and the House Oversight Committee Democrats’ office in September 2025, providing documents including Riley’s testimony to their whistleblower account.
She states that she and Riley met with House Oversight Committee Democrat Office aides on September 19, 2025, expressing “extreme concerns that Trump and conspirators were attempting to escalate criminal activity globally.”
When the FBI contacted Riley during the summer, Voldeng says she moved them out of the country for safety.
BUT BUT BUT: Let’s be absolutely clear: none of this has been independently verified. No mainstream outlet has confirmed these claims. No charges have been filed based on this testimony. The individuals named have not been given an opportunity to respond in this reporting, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is one person’s account with supporting documentation that hasn’t been independently authenticated. The justice system—broken as it may be—hasn’t weighed in.
WHY IT MATTERS ANYWAY: The Epstein case already proved that powerful men operated a child trafficking network for decades with near-total impunity. We know the client list exists. We know it hasn’t been fully released.
We know that when victims came forward for years, they were ignored, dismissed, and silenced.
Social media users are reporting that posts about Riley’s testimony are being throttled. The mainstream press isn’t covering it. Whether that’s responsible journalism waiting for verification or something more sinister is a question worth sitting with.
The testimony is public. The audio recordings are available. In an era where a convicted adjudicated rapist sits in the Oval Office, the least we can do is listen—and demand that someone with subpoena power does too.