Bill Ackman acknowledges that the allegations he shared on social media from a purported ABC News whistleblower claiming that the network colluded with the Harris campaign to disadvantage President Trump during the presidential debate were likely “fake.” 

“It seems pretty clear that the alleged @abc whistleblower debate story claiming that @KamalaHarris was given questions in advance and other advantages was a fake,” the billionaire investor wrote on X on Wednesday afternoon. 

When the allegations first surfaced, Mr. Ackman had been one of the strongest supporters of the whistleblowers “credibility” and even urged the chief executive of Disney, Bob Iger, to launch an investigation into the affidavit. 

“I find the allegations credible as written and also because the affidavit was apparently made and filed the day prior to the debate and makes mention of Harris’ smaller podium and other details that only became public thereafter,” Mr. Ackman wrote in a post on X addressed directly to Mr. Iger, days after the debate.  

The affidavit, which was never verified, was initially posted by a pro-Trump account on X called “Black Insurrectionist.” The user announced two days after the debate that they had signed a non-disclosure agreement with the attorney for the ABC whistleblower and would be releasing screenshots of some pages of the affidavit, which they did three days later. 

The screenshots of the document were quickly picked up by mainstream press and insist that the Harris campaign negotiated with the network to secure a slew of advantages both ahead of and during the debate, including receiving a list of sample questions beforehand. The author claimed to have worked in various “technical and administrative positions” at ABC News over the past ten years. 

In his most recent statement, Mr. Ackman links to a blog post written by radio host and former Fox News star, Megyn Kelly, who had also been critical of ABC’s handling of the debate. 

Her post offers an update on the affidavit, and the account which posted the document, and warns the public to “proceed with caution” after a major component of the allegations made by the whistleblower fell through.  

Much of the affidavit’s credibility rested on the claim that the whistleblower had sent a certified version of the letter to Speaker Johnson that was signed and sealed from before the debate. It has since been made clear, however, that Mr. Johnson never received such a document. 

“It seemed to me from the beginning that if he got the letter, the story is legit. If he didn’t get the letter, it is not. That just seemed pretty clear to me,” Ms. Kelly wrote. “We are now able to confirm the speaker’s office did not get the letter.”