>>> WELCOME BACK TO "SQUAWK BOX." OUR NEXT GUEST IS PERSHING SQUARE CEO BILL ACKMAN ONE OF THE MOST OUTSTOKEN VOICES ON ANTI-SEMITISM ON AMERICA'S COLLEGES AND PUSHED FOR THREE TO RESIGN DURING WHICH LEADERS SEEN WIDELY NOT DEFENDING THEIR JEWISH POPULATIONS'S TWO RESIGNED ONE OF THEM A ARE TOER HARVARD LEADER BECAME EM BROIMED IN A PLAGIARISM SCANDALED THAT TOUCHED ON ACKMAN'S ONLY FAMILY. BILL ACKMAN IS HERE, AND THIS IS YOUR FIRST MAJOR TELEVISION INTERVIEW SINCE THIS ALL BEGAN. WE DID TALK ONCE BRIEFLY ON "SQUAWK." YOU CALLED IN TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENS, BUT IN THE PAST COUPLE WEEKS -- >> ABOUT DEI, THOUGH. >> ABOUT DEI. THE PAST COUPLE WEEKS YOU HAVE BEEN ACTIVE THROUGHOUT ON X, OUTSPOKEN ON ALL OF THESE ISSUES. >> UH-HUH. >> ESPECIALLY AS THERE HAVE NOW BEEN ATTACKS UP AGAINST YOUR WIFE AROUND THE IDEA OF PLAGIARISM. I WANT TO SORT OF JUST UNTANGLE ALL OF THIS. BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MOTIVATING YOU, HOW THIS ALL BEGAN. >> SURE. >> WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. THERE ARE ISSUES ABOUT DEI, FREE SPEECH AND OTHER THINGS AS WELL. YOU'VE BECOME ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PROVOCATIVE AND POLARIZING VOICES IN THIS DEBATE. START WHERE THIS BEGAN BACK IN OCTOBER FOR YOU. >> ACTUALLY BEGAN BEFORE OCTOBER. AND IT BEGAN IN THIS ROOM. THIS IS OUR BOARD ROOM AT PERSHING SQUARE AND THE PLACE WE HOST OUR PERSHING SQUARE FOUNDATION'S BOARD MEETINGS A BOARD MY FATHER WAS A MEMBER OF AND LITERALLY EVERY MEETING BY DAD WOULD SAY, BILL, YOU'RE NOT DOING ENOUGH ABOUT ANTI-ACCEPT TICH. IMPORTANT PROBLEM, VERY DISMISSIVE OF MY FATHER. >> YOUTY MISSED YOUR DAD. >> HE PASSED AWAY IN MAY. JEWS ARE DOING GREAT, NO THE XPEERNTS A LOT OF ANTI-SEMITISM FOCUS ON IMPAIRMENT AND ENHANCING PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, FARMERS IN KENYA. AND THEN DAD HAD HEART SURGERY COMING UP, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. LIFE OR DEATH. HE WROTE ME THREE LETTERS. ONE WAS, HERE ARE MY INSTRUCTIONS IF I DIE. MEMORIAL SERVICE, ET CETERA. THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO WITH YOUR MOM. FINANCIAL AND SAFE MONEY. THE THIRD ONE A LONG LETTER ABOUT ANTI-SEMITISM. BILL, I WANT MY LAST WORDS TO YOU TO BE SOMETHING THAT YOU FOCUS ON. AND I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, TO BE HONEST. THEN -- OCTOBER 7th HAPPENED. REALLY OCTOBER 8th. IT WAS WHEN 30-ODD HARVARD STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS, MY ALMA MATER CAME OUT SAID THE MORNING AFTER THE MOST HORRENDOUS, BARBARIC TERRORIST ACTS IN HISTORY, AT LEAST IN MODERN HISTORY FOR SURE. CAME OUT AND SAID, IT'S ISRAEL'S FAULT. ISRAEL'S SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE HORRENDOUS HEINOUS ACTS, AND THEN THAT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THIS JOURNEY. >> AND YOU HAVE TAKEN, DARE I SAY, AN ACTIVIST APPROACH TO THIS? >> YES. >> YOU'VE ALSO BEEN CRITICIZEDS FOR ACTIVIST APPROACH. SOME HAVE BEEN PRAISE-WORTHY OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN TERMS OF PUSHING ON THESE ISSUES, BUT SAME TIME, ALSO HAS BEEN A REMARKABLE BACKLASH, AND NOW SEEING THAT BACKLASH MANIFEST ITSELF IN THE ATTACK ON YOUR WIFE AS RELATES TO ACCUSATIONS OF PLAGIARISM. >> YES. >> HOW HAS THAT MADE YOU FEEL AND HAS IT CHANGED YOUR VIEW ABOUT HOW TO APPROACH THESE THINGS? BECAUSE THERE'S SOME WHO SAY THIS IS REALLY GREAT, WHAT YOU WERE DOING. OTHERS SAY YOU HAVE TAKEN IT TO SOME DEGREE TOO FAR AND IN FACT BY BEING SUCH A BIG FIGURE IN THIS CONVERSATION, THAT IT ACTUALLY HAS MADE IT HARDER? TO GET WHAT YOU WANT. >> I DISAGREE. ACTUALLY, I THINK, FIRST OF ALL GOING OUT IN PUBLIC EYE AND MAKE STATEMENTS, STRONG ONES, ABOUT ISSUES THAT ARE CONTROVERSIAL E YOU'RE GOING TO BE CRITICIZED. HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE APPLAUDED AS WELL. WHEN THEY GO AFTER YOUR WIFE YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE MAKING SOME PROGRESS. I FELT VERY, KNOW -- WORST IS THIS IS FOR SHE DID NO WRONG NOTHING WRONG PUBLICLY, BUT IT MEANS, TALKED ABOUT IT, STARTED WITH ANTI-SEMITISM ON CAMPUS. THEN I GOT CONCERNED ABOUT GOVERNANCE AT HARVARD. NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT, BUT ON THE BOARD, IN MY VIEW, DIDN'T DO THE RIGHT THING. THEN BROADER CONCERNS ABOUT HIGHER EDUCATION GENERALLY. THEN ORIGINS OF ANTI-SEMITISM ON CAMPUS WHICH I THINK ARE A RESULT FROM THE SO-CALLED DEI MOVEMENT. AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES, AND THESE ARE ISSUES THAT WILL REQUIRE RESOURCES TO BE FOCUSED UPON AND I WOULD SAY I WAS EXTRAORDINARILY COMMITTED BEFORE. I'M UNDETERRED, AND ACTUALLY STANDING UP AN ORGANIZATION SHORTLY TO FOCUS ON PRECISELY THIS. NOW, IF YOU -- SO JUST -- >> THAT ORGANIZATION -- >> IT'S GOING TO BE, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM WITH THINK TANKS, WRITE ABOUT YOUR PAPERS, NOTHING HAPPENS. IT'S GOING TO BE A THINK AND DO TANK. GOING TO BE AN ACTIVIST, WE'RE GOING TO -- STUDY THESE ISSUES, AND COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS, AND WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT THEM. >> WHAT ARE THOSE ISSUES? ANTI-SEMITISM OR FREE SPEECH OR ABOUT DEI? GOVERNANCE? >> ALL OF THE ABOVE. ALL OF THE ABOVE. >> SO -- >> DAY JOB, PERSHING SQUARE. THE JOB I LOVE. AND PERSHING CONVEYOR, I PAID MY OWN BILLS. NOT A GOOD USE OF MY TIME. I HIRED PEOPLE TO DO THAT. IT'S TO DO ALL OF MY OWN PHILANTHROPY, A BIGGER RESPONSIBILITY. PUT TOGETHER, SET UP A FOUNDATION, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, HIRED A TEAM. THIS, AND OTHER INITIATIVES LIKE THIS. YOU AND I WERE ON TV TO TALK ABOUT CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING AND VISAS PROVIDING PAYMENT RAILS IF YOU WILL FOR SITES AND VIEWPOINT. 30-MINUTE INTERVIEW AND A FEW TWEETS. THIS IS A BIGGER PROJECT, AND IT'S NOW, THIS KIND OF ACTIVISM NOW REQUIRES SORT OF A SERIOUS TEAM. WE'VE GOT EXTRA SPACE. I'LL RENT SPACE, HIRE PEOPLE. HIRE A CEO. PUT TOGETHER A BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND WE'RE GOING AFTER THESE ISSUES IN A VERY AGGRESSIVE WAY. >> A LOT OF PEOPLE WATCHING YOU WRITE ON X. ALMOST BY THE HOUR. CONSTANTLY. CAN YOU JUST TAKE US INSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD ON THIS? YOUR HOME. WHAT THIS HAS FELT LIKE? BECAUSE, THERE'S AN INTERESTING DYNAMIC AT PLAY, WHICH IS, YOU HAVE LONG BEEN SOMEBODY WHO ATTACKED OTHERS IN THE CONTEXT OF ACTIVISM. AND NOW IN SOME CASES, ARGUABLY, YOU ARE BEING ATTACKED, AND YOUR FAMILY ATTACKED? >> REMEMBER, IF YOU'RE AN ACTIVIST SHORT SELLER YOU UNDERGO THE MOST AGGRESSIVE ATTACKS. I'M KIND OF A BATTLE-HARDENED PERSON AND IAA TRIED TO PUT ME OUT OF BUSINESS, DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB SICKING ELIOT SPITZER ON ME YEARS AGO. REMEMBER HAS? AND HERBALIFE END OF THE EARN CAMPAIGN ON BOTH SIDES. >> IS THIS DIFFERENT? >> YES. MUCH MORE IMPORTANT. MUCH MORE PROFOUND. EFFECTS MANY MORE PEOPLE. NOT JUST ABOUT A COMPANY. RIGHT? IT'S ABOUT SOCIETY. IT'S ABOUT EDUCATION. IT'S ABOUT FREE SPEECH. IT'S ABOUT -- YOU KNOW -- NOT JUST HIGHER EDUCATION. IT'S ABOUT NURSERY SCHOOL TO, YOU KNOW, K-12 EDUCATION. >> BUT TAKE US INSIDE YOUR HOME. BECAUSE PART OF THIS IS A BE YOUR WIFE. >> YES. >> AND ABOUT THESE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM. >> YES. >> ONE OF THE THINGS YOU DID IN THE CONTEXT GOING AN CLAUDINE GAY WAS ORIGINALLY WAS ABOUT ANTI-SEMITISM, AND TURNED INTO AN ARGUMENT ABOUT GOVERNOR NANCE AND PLAGIARISM ON HER SIDE? >> YES. ALWAYS ABOUT I WOULD SAY LEADER S LEADERSHIP AND LACK OF LEADERSHIP -- STARTED OUT ABOUT PROTESTS AGAINST ISRAEL BECAME PROTESTS THAT TURNED INTO ANTI-SEMITIC ACTIVITY ON CAMPUS'S REALLY THAT TRANSFORMATION HAPPENED BECAUSE OF LACK OF LEADERSHIP, LACK OF ENFORCEMENT OF ROOMS AND ULTIMATELY LACK OF CLARITY. CADILLACIC MOMENT, SAID SHE SHOULD RESIGN. SAID SHE SHOULD, PRESIDENT MAGILL RESIGN, AND POINT OUT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THEM IS BLACK, ONE IS JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A DIVERSE COLLECTION OF PEOPLE. ALTHOUGH ALL WOMEN. >> THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE ACCUSED YOU OF BEING RACIST? >> CRITICIZE A PERSON'S COLOR REGARDLESS OF CREDIBILITY OF YOUR ACTIONS, UNFORTUNATELY TONIGHT WOYOU'LL BE KRITSIZED. THAT WAS THE CATALYTIC MOMENT. DECEMBER 10th, DECEMBER 9th, THAT CONGRESSIONAL HEARING. AND TWO DAYS LATER THE HARVARD BOARD SAID, WE'RE WOO UNANIMOUSLY IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT GAY, AND THEN THIS WHOLE PLAGIARISM THING KIND OF ERUPTED. SORT OF OUT THERE, AND THEN MORE AND MORE FINDINGS WERE FOUND, AND I REPOSTED THESE FINDINGS, BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, I WAS HAPPY TO LEAVE FOR ANY REASON. FAILED TO CONVINCE THIS BOARD ON LEADERSHIP, ON MORAL CLARITY, ON ANTI-SEMITISM ON CAMPUS, AND THEN THIS PLAGIARISM THING STARTED TO GET LEGS. IT'S NOT LIKE I DISCOURAGED IT. I DIDN'T LOOK FOR IT. FOUND BY OTHERS, IN FACT, THOUGHT IT WAS DISAPPOINTING THAT SHE, WHAT PERCEPTION THAT THE CATALYST FOR RESIGNATION WAS PLAGIARISM AS A FAILURE TO ADDRESS ANTI-SEMITISM. >> ASK YOU ABOUT PLAGIARISM CHARGES, HOWEVER. NOW YOU'VE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE AND YOUR WIFE IS ACCUSED OF PLAGIARISM HERSELF. >> SURE. >> YOU HAVE DISPUTED THAT IT IS PLAGIARISM. YOU'VE ARGUED AROUND THE IDEA AND DEFINITION OF PLAGIARISM. ABLE TO CITE SOMEBODY NOT PUT QUOTE MARKS AROUND IT. ACCUSED YOUR WIFE OF, BUSINESS INSIDERS. ARGUES SIMILAR TO WHAT CLAUDINE GAY HAD BEEN DOING. DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW NOW OF THIS? >> SURE. SO PLAGIARISM IS FRAUD, AND IN AN ACADEMIC CONTEXT. IT'S THE MOST AGGRESSIVE, THE MOST DAMAGING THING YOU CAN DO TO A PROFESSOR OTHER THAN ACCUSING THEM OF SOME KIND OF RAPE OR 0 SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR VIOLENT CRIME. SO IT'S MAYBE SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN THAT. SO IT'S A VERY SERIOUS CRIME, AND IT IS, FOR THAT REASON, WHEN A PROFESSOR IS ACCUSED OF PLAGIARISM, IT'S A VERY SERIOUS PROCESS THAT GOES UNDER WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S PLAGIARISM. IT DOESN'T TAKE SIX MONTHS. A TYPICAL PERIOD FOR ASSESSING A PROFESSOR COMMITTED PLAGIARISM TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS A FOOTNOTE OR QUOTATION MARKS. IT'S AN INTENT. A PROFESSOR INTENTIONALLY STEALS SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEAS, AND ONE IS HOW -- USING SOMEONE ELSE'S WORDS OR NOT PUTTING A FOOTNOTE. THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT AN OVERSIGHT OR IS THAT INTENTIONALLY A THEFT? THINGS WANT TO LOOK AT IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS INTENTIONAL OR NOT, TRYING TO GET INTO THE MIND OF THE PERSON, IS HOW PERVASIVE IS IT? RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW TODAY WHETHER CLAUDINE GAY COMMITTED PLAGIARISM OR NOT. I HAVEN'T DONE A SIX-MONTH ASSESSMENT. >> OUT THERE ON TWITTER SAYING SHE PLAGIARIZED SHOULD NOME BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY WHEN IN FACT SHE STEPPED DOWN AND MADE HER A MEMBER OF THE FACULTY YOU RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT BASED ON THE PLAGIARISM ACCUSATION ITSELF? >> WHAT I SAID WAS, I SAID, IN LIGHT OF HER, WHAT HAS BEEN REVEALED ABOUT HER ACADEMIC RECORD AND WHAT WE LEARNED ABOUT PLAGIARISM, I DON'T THINK SHE'S QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON THE FACULTY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT, WHICH, AGAIN, I NEVER FOCUSED ON CLAUDINE GAY'S RECORD OR PLAGIARISM. I LEARNED SHE PUBLISHED 11 ARTICLES. NOT A DISSERTATION. 11 ARTICLES IN JOURNALS AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S REQUIRED TO BE A PROFESSOR AT HARVARD, IF YOU'RE IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, IT'S, THAT'S A VERY, VERY SMALL, VERY LIMITED ACADEMIC RECORD. SIX OF THOSE 11 PAPERS HAD 51 MISSING QUOTATIONS, YOU KNOW -- IF YOU WILL, WORDS, STILL, I WOULD SAY THAT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD, AND A POINT AT WHICH, YOU KNOW, HER ACCUSERS WERE PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN PLAGIARIZED FROM. THIS WORM CAROL SWAYNE, A MEMBER OF THE FACULTY PROFESSOR ACADEMIC IN HER SAME FIELD. SAID, SHE TOOK MY WORK. MAYBE SOME -- THOSE WORDS PLUS THE RECORD. SAYING THAT YOU'RE REWARDING HER WITH A $900,000 A YEAR CAN PROFESSORSHIP. REALITY, THAT WAS A LEGAL SETTLEMENT. I SAID SO. BUT MY ACTIVISM ON CLAUDINE GAY, I WANT TO DISTRACT FROM THE FACT, WAS ABOUT JUST YESTERDAY. I JUST TWEETED THIS OUT. A 73-PAGE COMPLAINT KIND OF LEVELLED AT HARD VARD. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO READ THIS. I LEARNED ABOUT, WENT TO CAMP ITS, A BASICALLY 50 PAGES OF ANTI-SEMITIC ACTS ON CAMPUS. A BIT LIKE NEW YORK CITY. WHEN NEW YORK CITY WAS A CRIME-INFESTED PLACE AND GIULIANI SHOWED UP, THE GOOD VERSION OF GIULIANI, HE INSTITUTED WHAT PEOPLE TALL CALLED BROKER WINDOWS THEORY. CRACKED DOWN ON EVEN SMALL VIOLATIONS LIKE THE SQUEEGEE GUYS. WHAT HAPPENED AT HARVARD THE PROTESTERS TESTED THE ADMINISTRATION AND THEN INCREMENTALLY STARTED VIOLATING MORE AND MORE AND MORE RULES AND NO CONSEQUENCES. THAT'S WHY THEY FELT COMFORTABLE GOING INTO UNIVERSITY HALL. >> YOU ARE NOW PLANNING TO, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY BEGUN, EFFECTIVELY SCRUBBINGED RECORDS OF PROFESSORS EVERYWHERE ESPECIALLY AT M.I.T., BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST YOUR WIFE CAME FROM? >> NO. THAT'S A BIGGER POINT. 0ING? BRIEFLY ON PLAGIARISM. PLAGIARISM IS FULL FRAUD. DEPENDS ON THE INTENT AND DEGREE TO SOME EXTENT AND GETTING BACK TO NARY. HER THESIS, 330 PAGES. A BUSINESS INSIDER FOUND FOUR PARAGRAPHS, OKAY, WHERE SHE HAD USED WORDS AND GAVE PROPER ATTRIBUTION WITHOUT QUOTATION MARKS AND ONE SENTENCE MISSED AN ATTRIBUTION. BY THE WAY, THIS SAME PERSON MISSED FOR THIS REFERENCED EIGHT OTHER TIMES AND PROPERLY RESHSED THAT PERSON. STICK WITH ME. ANDREW, IT'S IMPORTANT. IT'S MY WIFE. IF I'M AN ACADEMIC PANELIST ASSESSING THIS OUT OF 2,700 PARAGRAPHS 4, HADN'T ATTRIBUTION, CLEARLY NOT THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THOSE WORDS. NOT QUOTING SHAKESPEARE AND ONE SENTENCE. NO ONE'S GOING TO CON TCLUDE TH FRAUD. THAT INCLUDES INTENT. NOT EVEN AN IMPORTANT PART OF HER THESIS. ALL RIGHT? THAT'S NERI. WE'RE GOING TO KNOW ONCE WE FINISH THIS INTERVIEW HOW MANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE M.I.T. FACULTY HAVE THIS PROBLEM. IF PLAGIARISM FINDING A DUZ PARAGRAPHS WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION AND 300 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY, MAKES NO SENSE. WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN, PANEL A GROUP OF TOP SCHOLARS, AND LET'S COME UP WITH A DESKS OF PLAGIARISM THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT MAKES SENSE AND BY PROVING A POINT, BY SHOWING -- STANDARD IS FIND A MISSED FOOTNOTE YOU'RE A PLAGER IZIZER. WHAT BUSINESS INSIDERS SAID, FOUND FOUR PARAGRAPHS AND A FOOTNOTE. SO NERI THE DISSERTATION IS MARCH MAED BY PLAGIARISM. NERI SAID THEY'RE RIGHT. THERE WERE FOUR PARAGRAPHS AND ONE SENTENCE, THE NEXT STORY THEY WROTE, IT IS NERI OXMAN ADMITS TO PLAGIARISM. SHE DIDN'T ADMIT TO PLAGIARISM. ADMITTED TO A FEW CLERICAL ERRORS -- >> ARE YOU GOING TO SUE BUSINESS INSIDER? WE SHOULD SAY IS OWNED BY KKR, AND YOU MADE CALLS GIVING YOUR STATURE IN THE WORLD, AND YOUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH SOME OF THESE PEOPLE, THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO ACCESS TO. WHEN AN ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED ABOUT THEM THEY DON'T LIKE. >> THE FIRST THING WE DID, FIRST THING I DID, WAS CALL SOMEONE I KNEW ON THE BUSINESS INSIDER BOARD AND WHY WE'RE GOING TO STAND UP TO THIS ORGANIZATION. UNFORTUNATELY, BUSINESSES -- I'M NOT THE FIRST PERSON BUSINESS INSIDER OR MY WIFE IS THE NO THE FIRST PERSON, THEY'VE GONE AFTER FALSELY ACCUSING THEM OF SOMETHING CRIMINAL. OKAY? OR FRAUD. BECAUSE MY WIFE, ACCUSED MY WIFE OF FRAUD. TWITTER, IF YOU WILL, X, IS IT WILLERED WITH EVERYONE IN THE WORLD TALKING -- >> BUT THEY'VE ACCUSED OF BEING A RACIST, A LIAR. PEOPLE ACCUSED YOU OF FRAUD. YOU CARE ABOUT FREE SPEECH. >> I DO, FIRST OF ALL -- ACCUSING SOMEBODY OF FRAUD IS A VERY SERIOUS THING, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. THE AVERAGE GUY IS NOT GOING TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL HENRY ON THE CELL PHONE OR TEXAS, WHICH I DID. SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE THAT I CALL -- >> HENRY -- >> DIDN'T REACH HIM SO I SENT HIM A TEXT. SENT HIM A TEXT SAYING I'D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT SOMETHING. ALL OUTLINED IN MY TIKTOK, IF YOU READ IT. >> RIGHT. >> THEN I SPOKE TO A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF BUSINESS INSIDER. HE CALMED ME DOWN. HE SAID, OH, DOING AN INVESTIGATION. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU, THAT PLAGIARISM IS NOT A SERIES OF CLERICAL ERRORS, HAVE THIS IN A TEXT ON TIKTOK. ONLY REQUEST, WITHDRAW THE STORIES ARE ANNOUNCE THAT YOU'RE INVESTIGATING THEM. HE SAID I'LL GET BACK TO YOU. BACK TO MY POINT. YES, I HAVE THE ABILITY TO REACH OUT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. I'M ONE PERSON, I KNOW THEM DIRECTLY, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS WRITING A STORY THAT DESTROYS A REPUTATION ANDHAVE NOT RECOURSE. THAT IS A VERY, VERY BAD, BAD, BAD WAY FOR THE WORLD TO OPERATE, AND IN A WORLD WHERE ONLINE MEDIA, THE COMPENSATION FOR MEDIA IS BASED AND CLICKS. RIGHT? THE MORE ATTENTION YOU GET THE MORE YOU SELL YOUR ADVERTISING FOR. THAT MODEL DRIVES PEOPLE TO DO SENSATIONALIST STORIES WITH HIGH-PROFILE PEOPLE SAY THEY COMMIT CRIMES OR THE WIVES ARE HIGH-PROFILE PEOPLE. >> WHAT ABOUT THE FACTS THEMSELVES? THIS IS AXEL SPRINGER'S SPOKESPERSON TALKING YESTERDAY SAYING MOST PEOPLE UNDERESTIMATED THE WAY BILL ACKMAN IS COMPLETELY LOSING IT, ABOUT YOU, AND WENT ON TO SAY THE FACTS OF THE STORY STAND. THEIR ARGUMENT I BELIEVE THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS. THERE'S A QUESTION POTENTIALLY ABOUT THE MOTIVATIONS WHICH YOU'VE RAISED ABOUT THE EDITORS AND REPORTERS WHO MAY HAVE PER SUED THAT STORY. >> I LOVE THAT STATEMENT. LET ME TELL YOU WHY. BUSINESS INSIDER IS A WHOLLY UNSIB AREA OF AXEL SPRINGER. HE'S A MULTIBILLION DOLLAR ENTITY. WHAT AXEL SPRINGER SAYS FACTS IN THE BUSINESS INSIDER STORY ARE CORRECT AFTER I PUT OUT MY 54, 6,000-WORD THING OUTLINING WHY THE FACTS ARE FALSE, MOST TEAL MATERIAL THING IS NERI OXMAN ADMITTED TO PLICHERRISM. SHE NEVER DID. THAT'S A RECOURSE PARTY, WHICH THERE IS A LAWSUIT, WHERE YOU STARTED YOUR QUESTION. I HOPE WE DON'T END UP THERE. >> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A PAUSE. INFORMATION IS OUT THERE. COMING BACK TO THIS CONVERSATION TO TALK ABOUT THE WORLD OF ACTIVISM. THE POLITICAL PRISM I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHICH A LOT OF THIS IS LOOKED AT, DEI ISSUES, AND HOW YOU HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THE SHIFT IN ALL OF THIS. STAY WHERE YOU ARE. I'M GOING TO >>> WELCOME BACK TO "SQUAWK BOX." CONTINUING OUR CONVERSATION WITH PERSHING SQUARE CEO BILL ACKMAN. BILL, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I WANT TO JUST TALK BRIEFLY, THOUGH, ABOUT THE MARKETS BEFORE WE GET BACK TOHENRY KRAVIS. WHERE ARE YOU IN TERMS OF THE MARKET WHAT YOU THINK IS HAPPENING OR NOT HAPPENING? >> SO ON THE BOND MARKET. IF YOU REMEMBER I TWEETED 5%, GONE FAR ENOUGH. WE ACTUALLY REVERSED OUR POSITION. SHORT THE BOND MARKET, WENT LONG THROUGH ASYMMETRIC INSTRUMENTS AT THAT TIME. RATES COME IN A LOT AND KEPT THE POSITION ON BECAUSE WE BELIEVE RATES WILL COME IN FURTHER. DATA POINT CAME OUT THIS MORNING IS SORT OF -- THREE CUTS IN THE OFFING? >> ACTUALLY THOUGHT WE MAY NOT GET THOSE THREE RATE CUTS. MAYBE IT'S TWO. >> I THINK WE HAVE THREE. REMEMBER,ING THREE RATE CUTS, 75 BASIS POINTS OFF OF CALL IT 5.25, 5.5 IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT MOVE. THREE RATE CUTS WOULD BE LIKE A 15% REDUCTION IN RATES. RIGHT NOW WE'RE, WITH INFLATION COOLING, MEANINGFULLY, THE REAL COST OF MONEY IS VERY HIGH RIGHT NOW. SO I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE EARLY, AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE -- >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN -- >> MORE THAN THREE KITS. >> WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR EQUITIES AND THE LARGER ECONOMY? REMEMBER, IN A PRESIDENT'S ELECTION YEAR. >> GOOD FOR EQUITIES I THINK AS LONG AS THEY BRING RATES DOWN FAST ENOUGH TO AVOID A MEANING IFFAL RECESSION. >> BY THE WAY, TALKING JUST A MOMENT, I MENTIONED A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. YOU HAVE BEEN QUITE ACTIVE ONLINE ABOUT THE ELECTION. AT ONE POINT SUPPORTING, AT LEAST TALKING ABOUT, VIVEK RAMASWAMY. IF HE APPEARS NO LONGER IN THE GAME. AND ALSO A LONG-TIME DEMOCRAT AND QUITE OUTSPOKEN, SEEMS, AGAINST PRESIDENT BIDEN. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR POLITICS TODAY GIVEN SORT OF WHERE THINGS HAVE MOVED HERE. >> SURE. ONE, ALWAYS BEEN A CENTRIST. ALWAYS BELIEVED IN SUPPORTING WHOE WHOEVER'S BEST FOR THE COUNTRY, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENT. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR BIDEN TO STEP DOWN. JUST ON THE AGE, PAST HIS PRIME ISSUE. A GOOD PART OF THE REASON WE HAVE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE WORLD GEOPOLITICALLY PERCEIVED AS A WEAK PRESIDENT. HE WILL BE EVEN WEAKER IN A YEAR KWO. >> THAT MEANS YOU WOULD VOTE FOR FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP? AGAINST PRESIDENT BIDEN RIGHT NOW? >> I'LL MAKE THAT DECISION WHEN I HAVE THE CHOICE, BUT I WOULD SAY WHAT I'M HUGELY IN FAVOR OF AND ACTUALLY COMING HERE RIGHT AFTER THIS INTERVIEW DEAN PHILLIPS MEETING WITH AN ORGANIZATION. HE'S A THREE-TERM CONGRESSMAN FROM MINNESOTA. CONSIDERED ONE OF THE MOST BIPARTISAN CONGRESSMEN. SUPER CAPABLE, OCTENTREPRENEUR. BELVIDERE VODKA. HIGH-END SORBET. STICK WITH ME A SECOND. GOTTEN TO 26% APPROVAL OR 26% OF THE VOTE POLL IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, FROM NOTHING IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. SOMEONE PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT. BIDEN STEPS AWAY, LOVE A WORLD -- IMAGINE A WORLD IN WHICH WE HAVE A CAPABLE, YOUNG, GREAT MOTIVATED ENERGETIC PERSON ON THE DEMOCRAT TICKET AND SOMETHING SIMILAR ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET AND YOU WENT TO THE POLLS AND WEREN'T SURE WHO TO VOTE FOR BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH OUTSTANDING CANDIDATES. I THINK PHILLIPS INTERESTING ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE. HIGH HOPE, VIVEK, THE PERSON ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE. HE MIGHT SURPRISE PEOPLE. PEOPLE THINK HE'S OUT THE RACE. MAYBE. INTERESTING ABOUT HALEY AND INTERESTING ABOUT PHILLIPS, I THINK DEATHS AND REPUBLICANS CAN SUPPORT EITHER OF THOSE TWO CANDIDATES. >> DOES THAT MEAN YOU'RE ANYBODY B B BUT BIDEN? YOU TALK ABOUT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP BEING DANGEROUS. NOW TALKING OPENLY ABOUT VOTING FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> MY GOAL NOW, HAVE GOOD ALTERNATIVES TO TRUMP. THAT'S MY GOAL. >> IF THOSE ARE THE CHOICES -- >> I'LL MAKE MY DECISION THEN BASED ON THE STATE OF THE WORLD. I CAN'T IMAGINE BIDEN. STUNNED HE HASN'T SAID HE'S STEPPING ASIDE. VERY, VERY -- HE WILL LOSE -- >> VOTE FOR TRUMP? >> TRUMP WILL BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT IF BIDEN IS THE CANDIDATE FOR SURE. I MEAN -- I THINK -- YOU KNOW, AS NEIL FERGUSON HAS SAID. HE SAYS, IF BIDEN IS, IS PRESIDENT, WE'RE IN -- STICK WITH ME. HIS VIEW IS, THE U.S. IS AT GREAT RISK WITH BIDEN STAYING IN AT PRESIDENT GEOPOLITICALLY, BUT THE CONSTITUTION'S FINE. WITH TRUMP AS PRESIDENT, HE'LL KEEP US SAFE BUT THE CONSTITUTIONEN AT RISK. THAT'S THE CHOICE. >> DO YOU THINK YOUR POLITICS HISTORICALLY WHICH HAVE LEANED TO THE LEFT HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE AND I ASK, BECAUSE PART OF THE WHOLE POLITICAL PRISM WITH WHICH THE ARGUMENTS ARE ANTI-SEMITISM AND DEI AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH PEACH, ON CAMP CAN IS AND IN BIGGER INSTITUTIONS IS NOW SEEN THAT WAY. DO YOU THINK YOU MADE A MISTAKE? >> I THINK WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WHAT LEFT MEANS TODAY IS NOT A PARTY I WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH, AND THAT'S -- I WAS A BILL CLINTON DEMOCRAT. AND WHATTHE PARTY MORPH TOO IS NOT SOMETHING I WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH. >> DO YOU WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? >> I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF A PARTY. I LIKE BEING IN THE CENTER. AND IF -- AND PICKING THE RIGHT CANDIDATE, TIRED OF THE COUNTRY BEING ABOUT RIGHT AND LEFT. I WANT IT TO BE ABOUT WHAT RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY. >> BEFORE OUR CONVERSATION WAS PAUSED EARLIER. >> YES. >> WE WERE ABOUT TO TALK ABOUT HENRY KRAVIS, ACCUSATIONS ABOUT BUSINESS INSIDER, WHICH KKR OWNS AND WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO SUE THEM AND SUE HIM. >> YEAH. >> DO YOU -- >> I'M NOT SUING HENRY KRAVIS. LET ME BE CLEAR. BUSINESS INSIDER CORRUPTED THE STORY. IT'S A ROGUE NEWS ORGANIZATION. THAT WHAT THEY ARE. CHECK AROUND. PROBABLY KNOW IT ALREADY. OWNED BY AXEL SPRINGER, THE CEO OF WHICH IS A CRREAL GUY? OKAY? HAD SIX OR SEVEN PEOPLE CLOSE TO ME CALL ME SAY, THE CEO -- >> YEAH. >> ANCHOR GOOD AT THIS. BY THE WAY, THAT'S PLAGIARISM. YOU'RE TOAST. >> THANKS. >> SMALL ERROR. BUT -- WHERE WE WERE? >> YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT HENRY KRAVIS -- >> AXEL SPRINGER I THOUGHT WAS A LEGITIMATE COMPANY. SUPPOSED TO BE A FANTASTIC PERSON BUT THEY'RE THE CONTROL PERSON. OWN 100% OF WHAT MANAGEMENT OWNS. ESSENTIALLY ALL OF BUSINESS INSIDER. THEIR RESPONSIBLE FOR BUSINESS INSIDER'S ACTS AND BEST EVIDENCE OF THAT IS PUT OUT THE STORY, WE'VE DISPUTED IT. THEY'VE CONFIRMED. >> DO YOU THINK -- MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU THINK -- >> MY POINT HERE IS -- >> DIFFERENTLY -- BY THE WAY I'VE WRITTEN ARTICLES OVER THE YEARS. >> YES. >> YOU HAVE OBJECTED TO. VEHEMENTLY. WE'VEDISAGREEMENTS ABOUT THOSE ARTICLES AND YOU FELT IN CERTAIN CASES THEY WERE UNFAIR. I REMEMBER THOSE CASES. IS THIS DIFFERENT TO YOU BECAUSE OF THE FACTS OR DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S YOUR WIFE? >> IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF THE FACTS AND ALSO BECAUSE IT WAS MY WIFE. PUT IT THIS WAY. IF YOU WROTE A STORY SAYING BILL ACKMAN ADMITTED TO INSIDER TRADING, THE ACADEMIC EQUIVALENT OF WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT MY WIFE, I WOULD CERTAINLY CALL YOU, BUT IF YOU DIDN'T CHANGE THE STORY, I WOULD GO TO YOUR EDITOR, IF YOUR EDITOR WOULDN'T FIX IT I WOULD GO TO THE PRESIDENT. TO THE ULTIMATE CONTROL PERSON. THAT'S WHAT I'VE DONE HERE. FIRST OBJECT TO THE STORY TO THE BUSINESS INSIDER PEOPLE. THEY DO NOTHING. THEN WE COMPLAIN TO THE, THE AXEL SPRINGER MANAGEMENT TEAM OR THE BOARD AND WHEN THEY DOING IN, THEN END OF THE DAY, HENRY KRAVIS CONTROLS 48% OF THE VOTE OF THIS COMPANY. WITH A PHONE CALL HE COULD FIX THIS. SO, YES. THE FACT THIS HAS GONE ON, NOW A WEEK SINCE THIS, MORE THAN A WEEK. THURSDAY THE BEGINNING THEY SAID HER THESIS WAS MARRED BY PLAGIARISM, NERI OXMAN'S THESIS IS MARRED BY FRAUD. WHAT THEY SAID. SECOND STORY, SHE ADMITS TO FRAUGHT. PR PLAGIARISM. 24ERD THIRD STORY, FOUND FICTITIOUS EXAMPLES -- >> YOU SAID YOUR FAMILY IS OFF LIMITS. TOOK TO TWITTER SAYING HISTORICALLY BUSINESS PEOPLE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO GO AFTER FAMILY. >> YES. >> YET THERE ARE NUMEROUS INSTANCES WHERE YOU HAVE GONE AFTER MEMBERS OF FAMILIES AS PART OF SOME OF THIS ACTIVISM INCLUDING AROUND THE YU UNIVERSITIES. THIS IS TARA SWISHER ON X. A-OKAY TO ATTACK WE'VE IT'S OF M.I.T. FOLKS OR TALK ABOUT PEOPLE BEING FIRED FROM JOBS LIKE IT'S A HUMAN HUNT, AND ECONOMICALLY ATTRACTION PALS LIKE ELON GO AFTER HOUSE SPEAK PEEKERS OR HUSBANDS OF HOUSE SPEAKERS, FILE ALL OF THIS UNDER PLAYING TOUGH GUY GETTING A TASTE OF THE ENDLESS -- WON'T USE THE W0ORD, RAINS DOWN AFTER ALL OF US -- WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> SHE'S TALKING ABOUT LM ELON MUSK. >> NO. TALK YOUING ABOUT M.I.T., CHAIR OF THE BOARD. YOU EFFECTIVELY SAYS THE CHAIR WAS FUNNELING MONEY ILLEGALLY AT LEAST FOR TAX PURPOSES. >> I CAN HELP YOU. I KNOW THE STORY BETTER THAN YOU. CHAIRMAN OF M.I.T. MARK. M.I.T. SHARED WITH ME DO YOU THINK THIS UNUSUAL? M.I.T. THE ONLY FUNDER OF THIS NONPROFIT. CEO OF WHICH IS THE WIFE, CHAIRMAN OF M.I.T., CHAIRMAN OF M.I.T. IS TREASURER OF THIS ORGANIZATION AND M.I.T. IN 990, LISTED, IRS DISCLOSURE ONLY FUNDER. BILL, WHAT'S WITH THIS? TOOK A LOOK. HOW CAN THIS BE? TWEETED ABOUT IT. THEN SOMEONE, A SPOKESPERSON SAID, WELL, NO. THAT'S THE M.I.T. DONOR ADVISE FUND AND MARK FUNDED THE MONEY TO THE DONOR ADVICE FUND AND THE DONOR ADVICE FUND FUNDED THE MONEY TO HIS WIFE'S CHARITY. >> GOING AFTER HIS WIFE? GOING TO IMPACT THE WIFE? >> UNLESS SHE'S INVOLVED THE IN THE BUSINESS. SHE IS INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS. THE BUSINESS, BY THE WAY, A SCOOP FIGURED OUT RECENTLY. IT'S A DEI CONSULTANT. NONPROFIT DEI CONSULTANT AND THE WIFE OWNS APPARENTLY A FOR-PROFIT COMPANY. DEI CONSULTANT DETERMINES WHETHER, NONPROFIT DETERMINES WHETHER SUPPOSED TO SIGN A PLEDGE KEEPING VARIOUS DEI THINGS. A BIT LIKE PLEDGE SAYING YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO KEEP VARIOUS DEI THINGS. THEY HAVE A FOR PROFIT SERVICE WHERE THEY SELL YOU PRODUCTS, SERVICES, SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE TO ENABLE YOU TO FIX YOUR DEI PROBLEM. THIS IS THE CHAIRMAN OF M.I.T., AND UNFORTUNATELY, HIS WIFE, WHO'S THE CEO OF THIS BUSINESS. I WASN'T -- I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THE WIFE, BUT THE WIFE IS INEXTRICABLY INVOLVED HERE AND THE REASON WHY THIS IS TAX FRAUD AND HAS OTHER PROBLEMS IS WHEN YOU'RE -- WHEN YOU GIVE MONEY TO A DO NOR-ADVISED FUND, THE DONOR-ADVISED FUND IS NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE MONEY TO SOMETHING AFFILIATED WITH THE DONOR. THE PROBLEM NUMBER TWO IS THIS IS M.I.T. M.I.T. HAS SPONSORED A COUPLE FUNDS, AND THE GOAL IS TO GET M.I.T. MONEY FOR AFFILIATED THINGS AND OCCASIONALLY OTHER THINGS. A FIDELITY-ADVISED FUND, YOU CAN NEVER DO THIS. EVEN THOUGH M.I.T. IS THE ONLY FUNDER OF HIS WIFE'S CHARITY, THIS COULD NOT -- HE COULDN'T GIVE MONEY DIRECTLY AND GET THE SAME TAX DEDUCTION. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I ATTACKED THE CHAIRMAN OF M.I.T. I THOUGHT HE WAS FAIR GAME IN LIGHT OF WHAT'S GOING ON, AND HE'S PUTTING AT RISK THE TAX EXEMPT STATUS OF THE DONOR-ADVISED FUND. >> LARGER QUESTION ABOUT YOUR ROLE AS A DONOR AND INFLUENTIAL FIGURE IN THESE INSTANCES. SOME PEOPLE LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, WHAT IS BILL ACKMAN -- WHAT IS HIS RIGHT TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY OF THIS? MAYBE AS A SHAREHOLDER, YOU ARE, BUT SHOULD WE BE LISTENING TO THE "BILLIONAIRE CLASS"? YOU'VE SEEN THIS CRITIQUE. SHOULD WE BE LISTENING TO THESE PEOPLE? SHOULD THE ACADEMICS HAVE MORE FREEDOM AND HAVE MORE FREEDOM FROM THE MONEY? WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT? >> SURE. >> BY THE WAY, THIS IS BECOMING A BIGGER ISSUE AT HARVARD NOW. I WANT TO GET INTO THE HARVARD ENDOWMENT IN A MOMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE NEXT PIECE OF THE CAMPAIGN THAT YOU'RE GOING AFTER. >> SO, THE ANSWER IS, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO ME, DON'T FOLLOW ME. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. THE REASON WHY I CAN SPEAK FREELY, AND THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE THING ABOUT SOCIETY TODAY -- TODAY, IF YOU SAY SOMETHING THAT OFFENDS SOMEONE, YOU CAN LOSE YOUR JOB. YOU CAN GET BLACKBALLED. YOU CAN GET CANCELED. IT HAPPENS ON UNIVERSITIES. I'M NOT AFRAID. I'M NOT AFRAID OF BEING CANCELED. I'M NOT AFRAID OF LOSING MY JOB, AND FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE GIVES ME THE WHEREWITHAL TO SPEAK. AND BY THE WAY, I'VE LITERALLY GOTTEN THOUSANDS OF EMAILS, TEXTS, LETTERS, I CAN WALK YOU BACK TO MY OFFICE AND SHOW YOU, THEY COME IN EVERY DAY, PILES OF THEM, PEOPLE SAYING, BILL, THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US. AND YOU KNOW, MY BIGGEST DRIVER IN LIFE -- I SHOULD HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION DIFFERENTLY. THIS STARTED PRETTY CLOSE TO WHEN I WAS 18. BIGGEST DRIVER WAS INDEPENDENCE. I WANTED TO SPEAK FREELY, LIVE MY LIFE, AND THAT MOTIVATED ME TO BE SUCCESSFUL, AND YOU KNOW, I ARGUE WITH SUCCESS ALSO COMES RESPONSIBILITY. IF I SEE SOMETHING THAT'S A PROBLEM IN SOCIETY, I WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LOT OF MONEY, LOT OF RESOURCES, YOU KNOW WHAT? THEY CAN SIT ON THEIR YACHT, WHICH IS FINE, AND LIVE THEIR LIFE, AND NOBODY'S GOING TO CRITICIZE THEM. IN MY CASE, I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, WHEN I'M 85, LOOKING BACK, I WANT TO SAY, I HELPED SOLVE A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT PROBLEMS. IF YOU CAN'T TELL BY NOW, I'M A FIXER, OKAY? WHAT IS SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM? IT'S FIXING COMPANIES. WHAT IS THIS? HELPING TO FIX UNIVERSITIES. IT'S ALL THE SAME. >> LET ME ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THAT, AND THEN I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HARVARD ENDOWMENT. IF YOU GO BACK, YOU HAVE A TRACK RECORD IN WHICH YOU FIX THINGS, AND TIMES YOU FIX THEM AND YOU WIN IN A VERY BIG WAY. YOU ALSO FAIL IN A BIG WAY TOO, RIGHT? YOU COULD EVEN ARGUE THAT YOU'RE SOMEBODY WHO HITS GRAND SLAM HOME RUNS BUT ALSO HAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF STRIKEOUTS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. >> I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE. IF YOU LOOK BACK AT OUR HISTORY, WE HAVE HAD SOME BIG LOSSES, BUT THE SUCCESSES VASTLY OVERWHELM THE FAILURES. LIKE THE SUCCESS RATE IS EXTREMELY HIGH. AND YOU SHOULD LOOK AT OUR RECORD OVER TIME. SO, VALUE IN HERBALIFE, DISASTER. JCPENNEY, SMALLER DISASTER. TRY TO NAME TEN. WE'VE MADE A HUNDRED INVESTMENTS, WELL MORE THAN A HUNDRED. >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE NEXT FIGHT THAT APPEARS TO BE ON YOUR HANDS, WHICH IS THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING, I THINK, AT LEAST THE REPORTS HAVE BEEN THAT YOU'RE SUPPORTING AN OVERTHROW OF THE FOLKS WHO CONTROL THE ENDOWMENT AT HARVARD. >> NOT ACCURATE. SO, HARVARD HAS A BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT ELECTS ITSELF. IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT BOARD. IT'S THE CORPORATION BOARD CALLED THE FELLOWS OF HARVARD. THEY REALLY CONTROL WHO'S THE PRESIDENT. THEN, THERE'S A GROUP OF ALUMS THAT ARE PART OF SOMETHING CALLED THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS. >> RIGHT. >> 30 OR 32 OF THOSE. EACH YEAR, THERE ARE FIVE OR SIX SEATS THAT COME UP FOR ELECTION. IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GONE DOWN ON CAMPUS, A GROUP OF FOUR ALUMNI, A VERY IMPRESSIVE GROUP, YOU KNOW, NAVY S.E.A.L., MARINE, ALL MILITARY PEOPLE, BUT ALSO BRILLIANT. I KNOW ONE OF THEM. A GUY NAMED ALEC WILLIAMS, PRINCETON, DID A JOINT DEGREE HARVARD BUSINESS DEGREE AND YALE WHY HE WAS GOING TO AFGHANISTAN. SUPER IMPRESSIVE GUY. THEY'RE VERY UNHAPPY WITH WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE HARVARD CAMPUS, AND THEY NEED 3,200 SIGNATURES. BY THE WAY, IF YOU'RE A HARVARD ALUM, GO SIGN UP AND BACK THEIR CAMPAIGN. AND THEY'RE GOING THE PUT THEMSELVES UP FOR ELECTION TO BE ON THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL, BUT THE BENEFIT OF SUPPORTING THEM IS IT SENDS THIS INCREDIBLE MESSAGE TO HARVARD, GIVES THEM A MANDATE TO LOOK AT THINGS, AND THEIR PLATFORM INCLUDES ONE OF THE ISSUES THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE HARVARD ENDOWMENT EARNS SOMETHING LIKE A 4.5% COMPOUNDED RETURN FOR A DECADE IN ONE OF THE BEST BULL RECORDS IN HISTORY. THE HARVARD ENDOWMENT WOULD PROBABLY BE $500 BILLION OR SOMETHING, SO THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO THAT. >> SO, YOU THINK THERE'S -- WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING? >> WELL, SINCE WE -- WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT BEING IN THE POSITION WE'RE IN IS WE GET INBOUNDS. I'LL SHARE A COUPLE AND THE WORLD WILL TELL YOU WHETHER THEY'RE TRUE OR NOT. HARVARD LOST, APPARENTLY, A BILLION DOLLARS ON A FRAUDULENT SITUATION. >> WHAT FRAUDULENT SITUATION? >> APPARENTLY, THEY BOUGHT, LIKE, A FOREST IN THE AMAZON FROM BRAZIL, AND THE -- THEY INCLUDED IN THEIR RETURNS MARK TO MARKET GAINS ON THE FOREST. BUT APPARENTLY, THEY RELIED ON MARKS EACH YEAR FROM THE PERSON WHO SOLD THEM THE FOREST. KEPT TELLING THEM THAT IT WAS INCREASING IN VALUE UNTIL THEY, AT SOME POINT, BAD THINGS HAPPENED, IT BLEW UP AND WENT TO ZERO AND HAD TO WRITE IT OFF COMPLETELY. AT THAT POINT, IT WAS WORTH OVER A BILLION DOLLARS. SO, THE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE GETTING PAID INCENTIVES BASED ON THE INCREASED VALUE OF THIS FOREST BENEFITTED, AND THEN HARVARD TOOK A HUGE WIPEOUT. THAT'S NEVER BEEN DISCLOSED PUBLICLY. AGAIN, I HAVE NO -- >> WE HAVE TO FACT CHECK THAT. >> I'M SAYING THIS IS SOMETHING I HEARD FROM A VERY, VERY CREDIBLE SOURCE. THAT'S ONE. THE SECOND ONE I HEARD WAS THAT A PRESIDENT OF HARVARD HAD A VIEW ON INTEREST RATES AND DECIDED -- AND TOLD THE ENDOWMENT TO MAKE A BET ON RATES AND THAT BET LOST A BILLION DOLLARS. >> OKAY. >> SO, I GOT A COUPLE -- >> I'M A LITTLE ANXIOUS ABOUT PUTTING THAT OUT IN THE PUBLIC WITHOUT FACT CHECKING THAT IN REALTIME. >> HARVARD'S NOT A PUBLICLY TRADED THING. HARVARD SHOULD PUT OUT A STATEMENT, IS IT TRUE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD DID A DERIVATIVE TRADE THAT LOST MONEY ON RATES AND IS IT TRUE THAT HARVARD HAD AN INVESTMENT IN A FOREST IN SOUTH AMERICA OR OTHERWISE THAT THEY MARK TO MARKET EACH YEAR PAID A FEW MILLION DOLLARS, INCREASED TO SOMETHING APPROACHING A BILLION AND WERE FORCED TO WRITE IT OFF. LET'S ASK THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF PRESENTING IT AS FACT. >> WE GOT TO WRAP UP. >> I HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO SAY. >> I KNOW YOU DO. I WANT TO END WITH THIS. WHEN ALL THIS IS SAID IS DONE, DO YOU WANT TO BE KNOWN AS AN ACTIVIST INVESTOR? DO YOU WANT TO BE KNOWN AS SOMETHING ELSE? I THINK THERE'S A REAL QUESTION SORT OF WHO BILL ACKMAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN ALL OF THIS IN THE END? >> I WANT TO BE KNOWN AS A GOOD PERSON WHO CARES ABOUT SOCIETY, A PATRIOTIC PERSON WHO LOVES HIS COUNTRY, A LOYAL ALUM THAT WANTS TO HELP ITS UNIVERSITY, A LOVING HUSBAND, WHO WANTS TO TAKE CARE OF MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE, AND SOMEONE WHO REALLY CARES ABOUT THE TRUTH AND IS PREPARED TO GO ALL IN WHEN IMPORTAN
