SASCHA RILEY'S UNVERIFIED ALLEGATIONS: Lisa Voldeng's Cringeworthy & Irresponsible Interview of a Sexual Abuse Victim
Voldeng's interview of a sexual abuse victim and public prosecution of his abusers is highly unprofessional, risks contaminating the evidence, and muddies the waters for Donald Trump's victims.
Before you drop me hateful comments. Please understand. There is no doubt in my mind that Donald Trump sexually abused minors throughout his life. I am certain that Donald Trump and his co-conspirators engaged in even worse conduct than that. But know, there are appropriate ways to work with victims and present their stories to the public. Lisa Noelle Voldeng’s blog is not one of them.
A series of explosive, yet highly questionable, allegations involving high-ranking political figures has surfaced on Voldeng’s Substack page "Outlaws of Chivalry." As expected, her politically charged posts have further divided MAGA loyalists from the left. Again, Donald Trump’s decades long pattern of sexual abuse is now being punted between party lines. And Voldeng’s presentation of the allegations only plays into the division. How does that help victims?
Voldeng has no known professional license in therapy, medicine, or law. But she conducted a lengthy several day recorded interview of Sascha Riley in July 2025, about him being sexually abused as a minor. Riley (born 1973) alleges his adoptive parents trafficked him in the early 1980s into a child sex and snuff film ring led by Donald Trump.
While the nature of the claims is grave, the lack of professional vetting and the background of the interviewer raise significant red flags regarding the reliability of the “testimony” and its potential impact on credible advocacy for victims.
Danger of Causing Serious Harm to Sexual Abuse Victims
When an unlicensed or untrained individual attempts to interview a victim of sexual abuse, they risk causing profound harm that can span legal, psychological, and social dimensions.
Unlike a licensed professional (such as a forensic interviewer, specialized detective, or trauma therapist), an unlicensed person often lacks the training to navigate the "neurobiology of trauma," which dictates how victims remember and process their experiences.
Throughout Voldeng’s interview of Riley, she engages in highly unethical and unprofessional discussions with Riley. Voldeng uses leading questions to suggest what happened to Riley. Voldeng also fails to dispose of her political biases and uses highly charged language to describe and characterize her obvious political adversaries.
Danger of Contaminating Evidence
Voldgeng’s suggestive questioning throughout the interview contaminates the evidence and could severely undermine Riley’s future testimony in legal proceedings.
Untrained individuals like Voldeng often ask leading questions. These can plant false memories or cause the victim to agree with the interviewer’s suggestions just to end the stress. And although Riley’s recorded interview is not verified testimony under penalty of perjury, and technically constitutes hearsay, it could be used against him in legal proceedings. Prior inconsistent statements are a common exception to the hearsay rule.
As a lawyer, that last thing in the world I’d want for any client is to have recorded interviews of their allegations floating around. As a lawyer that represents victims all the time, I want to control and limit what evidence my client’s adversaries have. This is analogous to why you should remain silent when being questioned by police.
Moreover, leading questions are used in legal proceedings while cross-examination an adversary. There is no justification for Voldeng to cross-examine Riley while recording the exercise. The recordings place Voldeng in very risk position. No longer can he control the narrative.
The recordings also expose Riley to the risk of being sued by many people for defamation per se, i.e. when you accuse someone of a serious crime. While “the truth” is obviously a defense to defamation per se, it may be very difficult for Riley to prove his allegations given that the abuse occurred nearly 4.5 decades ago.
For example, if Donald Trump, Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, or Clarence Thomas sue Riley for defamation per se, their burden of proof is to show that Riley accused them of a crime, and published the accusations to a third party. At that point, the burden would shift to Riley who must prove that the accusations are true. It’s not the other way around. This places Riley in an extremely bad position. Thanks Voldeng.
When an individual files a police report or raises the allegations in a civil lawsuit, the the statements are typically privileged, meaning the accuser cannot be sued for defamation. But once the accuser publishes the allegations to third persons (outside the context of litigation), they risk being sued.
That’s why it is very important to have highly experience therapists, physicians, and legal counsel in these situations. In these situations, we do not want the abuser to control the narrative and file a defamation lawsuit. It muddies the waters and gives the abuser significant control and power.
Voldeng’s questions create inconsistencies. Because trauma often results in fragmented or non-linear memory, an unlicensed person might push for a strict timeline that the victim's brain cannot provide. This creates artificial inconsistencies that are later used in court to destroy the victim's credibility.
As a lawyer, I would never record a client’s statements. But if I did, it would be protected from disclosure under the work-product privilege. I would never want an abuser to have a tape recording like Voldeng’s interview with Riley.
Secondary Victimization
Asking a sexual abuse survivor to recall details can lead to retraumatization. When working with an abuse victim, you don’t want to have them relive the events without appropriate grounding techniques. Otherwise, you can easily trigger severe PTSD symptoms. I’m not here to diagnose Riley, but he even discloses that while he was in the Army and serving in the Iraq war, he came under heavy fire. He could have severe PTSD from the sexual abuse and serving in combat. Individuals with multiple sources of PTSD and be a high risk for experiencing panic attacks, dissociation, and even paralysis when triggered. Voldeng’s work here unnecessarily places Riley in a risky situation.
There’s also the risk when interviewing an abuse victim of inducing guilt and shame and loss of agency. In these situations, an interviewer can unintentionally dictate the flow of the conversation and divest the victim of their power. This could further harm the victim.
Ethical Risks
In this situation, Voldeng has broadcast the allegations in a very sensational way on her blog. What’s her plan now? She has alerted the alleged perpetrators. If his allegations are true, he’s immediately as risk of physical harm and continued intimidation. It’s interesting that the conclusion of Voldeng’s blog post explains that she reported all of his allegations to her “allies,” church officials, and police. And that when the FBI contacted Riley, she removed him from the “country.” Is that a good plan? Why expose a victim to all this. Veldeng’s credibility is weakened by the fact that she uses highly charged descriptions of Trump throughout her interview and on her blog.
Voldeng’s Lack of Credentials and Monetization
Voldeng possesses no apparent license to practice therapy, nor any documented professional experience in investigative journalism or forensic interviewing.
On her personal website, Voldeng describes herself as an investor in “individuals and companies involved in the pursuit of justice,” alongside interests in “advanced technology, finance, and content companies.”
The distribution of these interviews has a clear commercial component. Voldeng’s Substack charges $350 for an annual membership and offers a “founding member” tier for $2,500. For this price, subscribers receive “fireside-esque conversations on living chivalrously” and “remote training sessions on practical preparedness.”
The use of a paywalled blog to prosecute individuals for alleged sexual abuse is bizarre and could place victims in significant harms ways.
Voldeng also has a website Voldeng.com where she has a portfolio section that showcases several of her “companies and brands” and “apparel, books, handbooks, paintings, photography, music, mixed media, multi markets.”
Voldeng wrote that she published the audio recordings of Riley for herself and for Sascha. “And for his friends Samantha, Patricia, and Sarah, all of whom died.” Voldeng wrote.
Dangers of Blindly Accepting Riley’s Allegations as Truth
I have received a lot of flak from my last post where I discussed what I believe are some of the exaggerations in Riley’s recorded statements. Unfortunately, it is important to vet Riley’s allegations.
I understand the urge to blindly believe everything that is thrown out there. And I know there are many victims of Donald Trump. But I think it is dangerous for us to automatically confirm any allegation without first carefully vetting each claim with corroborating evidence. Otherwise, we are doing injustice to the other victims whose claims we already have substantial, reliable, and credible evidence of. Blindly adopting an unknown person’s allegations is not a good for anyone.
The problem I have with Riley’s allegations is that they often clash with established historical timelines. That’s not to say that his allegations are false. But he admittedly has difficulties recalling certain information. That’s normal. It does not mean he is lying.
Anachronisms and Logical Inconsistencies
Here are some of the inconsistencies in his allegations. As a recap, Riley alleges he was trafficked to a ring led by Donald Trump in the early-to-mid 1980s—a ring he claims included high-profile figures like Andy Biggs, Jim Jordan, Lindsey Graham, and Clarence Thomas.
Critically, the claims include several historical improbabilities:
The Putin Connection: Riley claims Vladimir Putin’s name was frequently mentioned by his adoptive parents during the 1980-1983 incidents. First of all, Putin has very limited English speaking skills. It’s not probably that he would be “hanging out” in the social circles of Sascha Riley’s father William Kyle Riley. At the time, Putin was a low-ranking KGB official in East Germany; he remained virtually unknown in the United States until his rise to power in 1999. There are no verified records of Putin ever visiting the United States in the early 1980s. During that time period, Putin was serving in Leningrad at the First Department as a counterintelligence agent. Putin was tasked with monitoring foreign officials—not recruiting Westerners. In the past, both Riley and Voldeng posted politically charged statements and rhetoric about Trump, Russia, and Putin.
The Jim Jordan Timeline: Riley alleges Jim Jordan was a participant in the ring. However, in the early 1980’s Jordan was still in high school. In the mid-1980’s he attended University of Wisconsin-Madison. Riley alleges he was forced to fight Jordan in front of a group of people. At the time, Riley would have been 10 and Jordan 20 years old.
“So he assaulted me in front of a crowd, and I think that it was filmed, but I can’t swear that it was filmed, but it was in front of those 25 or 50 people. . . The reason that I remember Jim Jordan is first he stood out because he wasn’t that much,
he’s only like seven or eight years older than me.” Riley alleged.
Trump’s relationship with Epstein
Riley alleges that Trump ran the child sex-trafficking and snuff film ring. Whereas Jeffrey Epstein played a lower function in the ring. The difficulty with these allegations is that there is no known association between Donald Trump and Epstein during the early 1980s. There is little evidence of Trump having any connection to Epstein until at least the late 1980s. That’s not to say that Trump and Epstein did not know each other in the early 1980s, but if they did, and you evidence of that, please send it to me.
Kicking a Wooden Stake in Donald Trump
One specific account involves Riley allegedly causing a life-threatening injury to Donald Trump using a wooden tent stake—an incident Riley claims resulted in Trump being “life-flighted” out. There is no public record of such a medical emergency or injury. There is chatter that the anal injuries line up with the fact that Donald Trump’s personal physician was gastroenterologist Harold Bornstein. Bornstein claimed his office and records were raided by Trump’s people when Trump became president. Bornstein died in 2021. There are also the allegations that Trump wears diapers and frequently stinks his staff and the press out of meetings. Gossip indicates that this is somehow evidence that supports Riley’s allegations of injuring Trump’s rectum.
The biggest problem I see with Riley’s claim about the wooden stake is that there are no known time periods between 1980 and 1983 where Trump was temporarily disabled, such that Trump was unable to walk. I found photos of Donald Trump standing and in good spirits nearly every month from 1982 through 1985. Trump was a well known-public figure at that time.
Although I have not researched every possible month, it’s easy to find evidence that Trump was not suffering from a serious physical disability in the early 1980s.
If Trump had been life-lifted and hospitalized due to the wooden stake wound, it should not be hard for someone to find photos of Trump with crutches or in a wheel chair.
In a hypothetical scenario where a person sustains a traumatic impalement from a woodent tent stake, the medical consequences would be severe and life-threatening. Rectal impalement involves complex trauma. Trump’s colon could have been perforated. He could have suffered from internal organ damage depending on the angle and force. Riley could have penetrated Trump’s bladder, small intestine, or even his liver, diaphragm, or lungs. There would likely have been significant internal bleeding, nerve damage, and loss of mobility. Trump would have needed immediate surgery and hospitalization. A full recovery from that severe of an injury could take over a year.
There is no readily available evidence that Trump suffered such a severe injury in the early 1980s. Perhaps someone will locate it. We will see.
The Danger of Unvetted Testimony
Voldeng frequently refers to the recordings as “testimony,” despite the fact that they were not taken under penalty of perjury or through a formal deposition.
Voldeng’s conduct during the interviews has also drawn scrutiny. At one point, approximately 50 minutes into the first recording, Voldeng laughs and compares the alleged events of Riley kicking the wooden stake into Donald Trump to the Denzel Washington film The Equalizer.
This injection of levity and pop-culture reference stands in stark contrast to the standard of care required when discussing sexual trauma with a victim.
Furthermore, Voldeng’s use of Latin phrases like “Veritas vincit” (truth conquers) and frequent biblical citations suggests on her Substack post presents a crusade-like narrative rather than an objective investigation.
While every allegation of abuse deserves to be heard, they must be approached with extreme caution when they lack corroboration and are presented by uncertified intermediaries.
The primary concern is that Riley’s accounts—which feature significant chronological gaps and sensationalized details—could be used to “muddy the waters.” By associating high-profile figures with improbable scenarios, such reports risk undermining the efforts of other victims whose allegations are supported by credible, forensic evidence. Without corroboration, these recordings remain a cautionary tale of the dangers of “citizen journalism” in the sensitive arena of sexual abuse.
The guy said he would take a polygraph which apparently was valid enough to get people accused of leaking at the Pentagon fired. Let's have him take a polygraph. He also made these claims online in 2023 so his story has been consistent.
https://substack.com/@shelbyraelane/note/c-200277287?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=34ve8z