OK critical thinking, stay sharp people and yes I do reference this author a lot, however, where is the proof?

By Rachel Hurley:

The Soviets called it “dezinformatsiya.” We call it salting. And somebody just salted the shit out of the Epstein discourse.

Here’s how this trick works in spy school.

Take nine true things and one lie. When someone finds the lie, they throw out all ten. Or flip it: take nine lies and one verifiable truth. When someone confirms the truth, they assume the rest must be legit too.

This isn’t conspiracy theory.

The KGB literally had a department for this. A Czech intelligence defector named Ladislav Bittman wrote a whole book about it - said that for any disinfo campaign to work, “every message must at least partially correspond to reality.” You mix the poison with sugar so it goes down smooth. Churchill called it “a bodyguard of lies.”

Now. The Sascha Riley audio tapes.

If you’ve been anywhere near political social media this week, you’ve seen people losing their minds over these recordings. Supposedly a decorated Iraq War vet recounting childhood trafficking connected to Epstein, naming names including Trump, claiming he’s testified to the House Oversight Committee. People are crying. People are demanding investigations. The emotional temperature is through the roof.

One small problem.

Not a single claim has been verified by anyone. Not courts. Not law enforcement. Not the FBI. Not a single mainstream outlet.

The “journalist” who published the audio, Lisa Noelle Voldeng, has no verifiable professional background.

Fact-checkers have flagged mismatched dates, references to military figures who may not exist, and claims so “over the top” they’re raising red flags everywhere. When supporters demand proof, they point to… the audio itself. Which is not how evidence works.

I can t but keep asking - why would someone release so much unverifiable testimony right now?

Think about it. If you wanted to protect Trump from the actual Epstein evidence - the stuff that’s documented - what would you do?

You’d flood the zone with something so sensational it drowns out the receipts. You’d make the claims so extreme they can never be proven. Then when the whole thing collapses - and it will collapse if it’s fabricated - everyone who shared it looks like an idiot. Suddenly all Epstein investigation becomes “that conspiracy theory people fell for.” The real journalism gets buried under the rubble of something designed to blow up.

That’s salting. That’s the technique.

“But Rachel, survivors should be believed.”

Survivors with depositions and court records should absolutely be believed. Virginia Giuffre’s testimony withstood cross-examination. The victims in the Maxwell trial provided evidence that led to conviction. That’s what real survivor testimony looks like when it’s legitimate. It goes through legal process. It gets verified. It holds up.

Audio recordings published by someone with no credentials, containing allegations no outlet will touch, expecting you “just believe” without verification? That’s not survivor testimony. That’s a test of how gullible you are.

The reaction alone is a tell. “I listened and cried.” “I felt physically sick.” “I believe completely.” These are emotional responses, not evidentiary ones. And content that’s optimized for emotional virality rather than accuracy is… well, that’s exactly what disinfo looks like. The KGB would be so proud.

Here’s what I know for sure: the real Epstein evidence doesn’t need help from this story. The real connections are documented. The receipts exist. And anyone trying to get you to share unverifiable claims instead of documented evidence is either not paying attention or doing someone’s work for them.

You want to nail Trump on Epstein? Use the depositions. Use the flight logs. Use his own words on tape. Use the evidence that holds up.

You want to protect Trump on Epstein? Get everyone sharing sensational claims that collapse under scrutiny, then watch the whole discourse get dismissed as hysteria.

Know the difference. Please.

I believe that Sascha Riley believes what he is saying. But that doesn’t make it true.

And not one piece of evidence that he has shared proves a damn thing.

Periodt.