Ty Cobb Calls Karoline Leavitt “Creepy Karoline” in Fiery Clash Over Tariffs and Judicial Overreach

In a stunning public rebuke that has rattled both the political world and media circles, former White House lawyer Ty Cobb lashed out at Karoline Leavitt, Donald Trump’s former press secretary, after she made critical remarks about federal judges who had blocked the president’s tariff plans. Cobb’s harsh critique of Leavitt’s comments on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront has ignited a media firestorm, adding fuel to the ongoing debate over the limits of executive power, judicial independence, and the contentious tariffs introduced by Trump.

Leavitt’s Outburst on Judicial Overreach

The drama began on Thursday, when Karoline Leavitt delivered an impassioned response to the judicial ruling that had blocked President Trump’s sweeping global tariffs. Leavitt, known for her unapologetic conservative views, wasted no time attacking what she called “judicial overreach.” The ruling, which came from a panel of three judges, stated that Trump had overstepped his executive authority in imposing tariffs, and this decision was temporarily put on hold pending an appeal.

Leavitt’s remarks, however, did not sit well with many observers. In a fiery press briefing, she labeled the panel as “activist judges,” even though one of the judges was appointed by Trump himself and another by conservative hero Ronald Reagan. She argued that these rulings were politically motivated and that they represented a systemic bias against the administration’s economic policies.

This divisive rhetoric caught the attention of Ty Cobb, who did not mince words when addressing her comments.

Ty Cobb’s Blistering Response

During his appearance on Erin Burnett OutFront, Cobb, who served as a White House lawyer from 2017 to 2018 and was heavily involved in the internal response to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, unloaded on Leavitt’s characterization of the judges.

“I don’t think creepy Karoline, when she speaks, I don’t think anybody in America really takes her seriously on a matter of substance,” Cobb remarked, his tone scathing. “She’s not learned by any imagination. And I think her comments are clearly so defensive and so ill-informed that people might largely turn her out. She’s wrong.”

Cobb’s critique didn’t stop there. He went on to explain the constitutional basis of the ruling, emphasizing that the issue was not about the president’s ability to set tariffs, but whether Congress had delegated that authority to the president in a way that was constitutionally sound. “These courts are not trying to participate in international trade matters. All they’re doing is ruling on whether a statute authorizes actions by a president,” Cobb said, citing legal precedents and arguing that the statute Trump was using had never been invoked in connection with tariffs before.

Cobb also referred to the legal basis for the ruling, explaining that the Constitution’s separation of powers barred Congress from granting the president “unbounded tariff power.” The implication was clear: Leavitt’s defense of Trump’s tariff policies ignored the fundamental checks and balances built into the U.S. system of government.

Leavitt’s Defensive Position and Prior Controversies

Leavitt, who has gained prominence for her brash defense of Trump’s policies, did not take Cobb’s criticism lightly. In previous remarks, she had suggested that judges who ruled against the Trump administration were often biased or politically motivated. Back in March, she had labeled a judge involved in a deportation case as a “Democrat activist,” even though the judge in question was appointed by George W. Bush, a Republican.

Her tendency to attack judges who rule against the administration has drawn the ire of legal experts and critics alike. Leavitt’s approach aligns with Trump’s rhetoric during his presidency, in which he often criticized judicial rulings that did not align with his policies. However, her recent comments have raised concerns about the long-term implications of politicizing the judicial system.

The controversy surrounding Leavitt’s remarks was compounded by the legal complexities of the tariff case, as the U.S. Court of International Trade had ruled that Trump’s tariffs overstepped his authority. While the decision was temporarily blocked by an appeals court, the legal implications of the case remain significant.

Cobb’s Criticism and Leavitt’s Response: A Deepening Divide

The public exchange between Cobb and Leavitt reflects the growing polarization in American politics, where even the most basic political and legal disagreements can become deeply personal. Leavitt’s accusation that judges were overstepping their bounds and engaging in judicial activism was met with an unrelenting response from Cobb, who framed her remarks as both ill-informed and politically motivated.

Leavitt, for her part, continued to defend her position, doubling down on her assertion that the judicial ruling was an overreach. “I think the president was simply trying to do what’s best for America,” she said in subsequent interviews, “and we need to stand behind policies that put American workers first.”

However, Cobb’s critique of Leavitt’s characterization of the judiciary as “activist” left a lasting impact on the public discourse. The exchange highlighted the stark divide between conservative defenders of Trump’s economic policies and those who see the legal system as a crucial check on executive power.

The Fallout: A Nation Divided

As the feud between Cobb and Leavitt played out in the media, reactions from both sides were swift and polarized. On social media, supporters of Leavitt rallied behind her defense of Trump’s policies, calling out Cobb and others who they believed were part of a biased media elite that ignored the needs of ordinary Americans. “Leavitt is simply speaking the truth,” one supporter wrote on Twitter. “She’s standing up for the working class while the elites like Cobb attack her with lies and misinformation.”

On the other hand, Cobb’s defenders praised him for his measured, fact-based approach and for standing up to what they saw as reckless political commentary. Legal analysts also took to social media, applauding Cobb for his expertise in constitutional law and for his direct challenge to Leavitt’s unsubstantiated claims.

This clash between Bondi and Leavitt has only served to deepen the divide within American politics, particularly on issues like judicial independence and the role of the executive branch in policymaking. The future of Trump’s policies and their influence on the legal system remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: this is a debate that will continue to play out in the courts, in the media, and in the halls of Congress for years to come.