- June 07, 2016 - 
 
 Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Trump University 
 
 It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage. I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent. The American justice system relies on fair and impartial judges. All judges should be held to that standard. I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial. 
 
 
 
 Over the past few weeks, I have watched as the media has reported one inaccuracy after another concerning the ongoing litigation involving Trump University. There are several important facts the public should know and that the media has failed to report. 
 
 
 
 Throughout the litigation my attorneys have continually demonstrated that students who participated in Trump University were provided a substantive, valuable education based upon a curriculum developed by professors from Northwestern University, Columbia Business School, Stanford University and other respected institutions. And, the response from students was overwhelming. Over a five year period, more than 10,000 paying students filled out surveys giving the courses high marks and expressing their overwhelming satisfaction with Trump University’s programs. For example: 
 
 Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue. 
 
 Art Cohen, a lead plaintiffs in the litigation, completed a survey in which he not only rated Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in virtually every category, but went so far as to indicate that he would “attend another Trump University seminar” and even “recommend Trump University seminars to a friend.” When asked how Trump University could improve the seminar, Mr. Cohen’s only suggestion was to “[h]ave lunch sandwiches brought in” and make the lunch break 45 minutes. 
 
 Former student Bob Giullo, who has been critical of Trump University in numerous interviews and negative advertisements from my political opponents, also expressed his satisfaction, rating Trump University’s programs “excellent” in every category. When asked how Trump University could improve its programs, Mr. Giullo simply asked that students be provided “more comfortable chairs.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 Indeed, these are just a few of literally thousands of positive surveys, all of which can be viewed online at www.98percentapproval.com. 
 
 
 
 For those students who decided that Trump University’s programs were not for them, the company had a generous refund policy, offering a full refund to any student who asked for their money back within 3 days of signing up for a program or by the end of the first day of any multi-day program, whichever came later. 
 
 
 
 Normally, legal issues in a civil case would be heard in a neutral environment. However, given my unique circumstances as nominee of the Republican Party and the core issues of my campaign that focus on illegal immigration, jobs and unfair trade, I have concerns as to my ability to receive a fair trial. 
 
 
 
 I am fighting hard to bring jobs back to the United States. Many companies – like Ford, Nabisco, Carrier – are moving production to Mexico. Drugs and illegal immigrants are also pouring across our border. This is bad for all Americans, regardless of their heritage. 
 
 
 
 Due to what I believe are unfair and mistaken rulings in this case and the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge’s impartiality. It is a fair question. I hope it is not the case. 
 
 
 
 While this lawsuit should have been dismissed, it is now scheduled for trial in November. I do not intend to comment on this matter any further. With all of the thousands of people who have given the courses such high marks and accolades, we will win this case! 
 
 Donald J. Trump ||||| The candidate said “it is unfortunate my comments have been misconstrued” 
 
 He has said the judge cannot be impartial in a trial against Trump University 
 
 Trump will not comment on the matter any further ||||| Donald Trump’s attempt to calm the firestorm over his racially based attacks on the judge overseeing Trump University lawsuits did not include an apology but offered clear evidence that the presumptive GOP nominee now recognizes the damage the controversy has done to his campaign. 
 
 Tuesday’s attempt to stop the bleeding — which came in the form of a lengthy, lawyerly statement — followed a phone call from Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus imploring Trump to walk the comments back, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation. And it followed several days of pleas from campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who counseled Trump to eschew attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 But those pleas fell on deaf ears as Trump opted to double down instead. 
 
 Trump, who just Monday had implored surrogates to reject a staffer’s advice to duck questions about the judge and to continue defending his comments, shifted course only after the call with Priebus, who has played a central role in trying to broker a stronger relationship between Trump and the party establishment. 
 
 But just as Trump's charged comments could weaken his campaign, they're only adding to the pressure on Priebus — he is already hearing calls from some arguing that Trump's racially based attacks are reason enough to justify the extreme measure of passing a rule to unbind delegates on the first ballot at the RNC convention next month. 
 
 The RNC did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
 
 The statement that Trump’s campaign sent out Tuesday afternoon provided an extensive defense of Trump’s bias claims and a vow not to comment further on the case or the judge. And it was clearly an effort to quell intensifying criticism from Republicans of all stripes, almost uniformly troubled by the inherent racism of the comments and the candidate’s seeming inability to pivot to a more presidential bearing as the general election begins. 
 
 “It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage. I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent,” Trump said in the statement, while also asserting that it’s fair for him to question whether Curiel has a conflict of interest because of his Mexican roots and Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. 
 
 “Due to what I believe are unfair and mistaken rulings in this case and the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge’s impartiality. It is a fair question. I hope it is not the case,” Trump said. 
 
 This controversy has swirled around Trump’s campaign for nearly two weeks, ever since Trump first went out of his way to criticize Curiel during a May 27 rally in San Diego, where he first referred to the judge as “a Mexican” in arguing that he was biased against him. Curiel was born in Indiana to Mexican parents. 
 
 The ensuing days of news coverage, as Trump himself stubbornly pressed on with and expanded upon that argument and left prominent Republicans to recoil in horror, have unraveled whatever party unity he’d managed to loosely knot together in the weeks since becoming the GOP’s presumptive nominee. 
 
 Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk on Tuesday rescinded his endorsement of Trump, saying the Curiel comments in the context of past remarks have made it impossible for him to support the likely nominee. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who’d appeared open to working with Trump after a phone call softened his Never Trump stance, has been urging other Republicans to follow suit. And House Speaker Paul Ryan, who finally endorsed Trump last week, saw his press rollout of the new GOP policy agenda Tuesday overshadowed by questions about Trump’s comments, which he strongly criticized as being the “textbook definition of a racist comment.” 
 
 For several days, Manafort and his allies had urged Trump to stop attacking Curiel and to respond to questions about the Trump University lawsuit by going on offense, highlighting Bill Clinton’s ties to the for-profit Laureate Education and the grants the company received from Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. 
 
 According to three sources inside the campaign, campaign manager Corey Lewandowski argued against changing course. But both Lewandowski and Manafort on Tuesday night dismissed all suggestions that they were divided on this issue. 
 
 “For anyone to insinuate that Paul and I are on different pages, that is totally inaccurate," Lewandowski said. 
 
 Even after the call from Priebus, Trump offered no apology as he continued pressing his case — through in a less strident tone — in the statement on Tuesday. 
 
 “The American justice system relies on fair and impartial judges. All judges should be held to that standard,” Trump said. “I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial.” 
 
 Ben Schreckinger contributed to this report. 
 
 UPDATE: This story has been updated with a comment from Trump's campaign manager. 
 
 
 
 Authors:
– Donald Trump issued a statement Tuesday in which he blames the media for his "misconstrued" comments on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, whose Mexican heritage Trump says make him unfit to preside over the Trump University case. The Charlotte Observer calls it a "non-apology," and Politico characterizes it as an attempt to "calm the firestorm." The statement comes shortly after Paul Ryan called Trump's claim the "textbook definition of a racist comment" and Sen. Mark Kirk called it "un-American." Politico also reports the statement was only issued after RNC chairman Reince Priebus called Trump and asked him to "walk the comments back." In his statement, Trump blamed the media for reporting falsehoods, defended Trump University, and insisted once again that he isn't racist. “I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent.” He also says his questions about Curiel, who was born in Indiana, are "fair" and points out the judge was appointed by President Obama. Trump closes the statement by saying he doesn't plan to comment any further. The Trump University trial is scheduled for November. It's unclear how much Trump's comments about Curiel have hurt him. While Kirk said he would no longer be able to support Trump, Ryan says he'll still vote for him. And Newt Gingrich, who called the comments "inexcusable," says he's still impressed by Trump.