How did the controversy begin over Donald Trump's attacks on the judge in the Trump University lawsuit? It began when Donald Trump couldn't stop talking about the Trump University lawsuit.

In the normal course of events, a campaign flap starts with an expose in the press, or an attack from a rival campaign, or perhaps an embarrassing gaffe. The candidate is then forced to discuss, or at least acknowledge, a matter he would rather not face. The candidate's biggest hope is that everybody will stop talking about it.

Not Trump. Of course there had been news reports and discussion of Trump University earlier in the campaign. But it wasn't in the news on May 27, when Trump appeared at a campaign rally in San Diego. The city just happens to be where the Trump University case will be tried in federal court, under U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. While Trump has discussed the suit in speeches before, being in San Diego apparently put him in the mood to dissect it at length.

Great length. In a speech that went a little less than an hour, Trump spent more than ten minutes talking about Trump University. Ten minutes is a lot of time. It was far more, for example, than Trump spent talking about jobs — one week before a terrible jobs report raised serious questions about the recovery. Ten minutes was more than Trump spent talking about illegal immigration, his signature issue. Or veterans, a recent favorite. Or even, astonishingly, the damning State Department report on Hillary Clinton's email scandal.

No, Trump spent more time talking about the Trump University lawsuit than all of those. He discussed individual plaintiffs by name. He discussed various law firms. His opinion on summary judgment. And more. And, in the course of his extended remarks, Trump said of Curiel, "So what happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that's fine..."

And it was off to the races. Trump spent the next several days — it's not over yet — sharpening his attack on Curiel and setting off a wave of indignation, anger, criticism, and embarrassment that sent Republican allies running as Trump dug his hole deeper and deeper.

But it all started not with a rival's attack but with Trump himself and that ten-minute soliloquy in San Diego.

Put aside questions of race or ethnicity. Trump's judgment — bringing up his own scandal and giving himself the opportunity to make things infinitely worse — left Republican political professionals with mouths agape. Who does such things?

"It's purely emotional," said Strategist One, formerly of a rival campaign. "It makes zero sense."

"He won't let it go," said Strategist Two, a veteran of an earlier GOP campaign. "This was litigated during the primary. Trump's rivals brought up the issue of Trump University, and Republican primary voters evaluated it, and it didn't seem to matter." Even if Democrats are sure to bring it up in the general election campaign, Trump is under no obligation to do it himself.

"In a year where nothing has been rational, the only rational explanation would be that he is wilfully trying to imperil his own campaign," said Strategist Three, a Hill veteran. "But again, logic need not apply."

Strategist Four, another rival campaign vet, was at a total loss. "What did I do to you?" he responded when asked what explained Trump's actions. "How did I get tasked with answering this question about Donald Trump: 'What explains it?' I'm at a loss. As a strategist, a husband, a homeowner, and a human."

Only Strategist Five, from another earlier campaign, saw a plan at work. "My guess as to their thinking is a strong offense is the best defense," he said. "Doubling down in times of conflict does sometimes work. If all these so-called smart people were so good, why did they all fail miserably this cycle?"

From the Trump campaign's point of view, Strategist Five made perhaps the most important point. Team Trump views Republican strategists as losers, because Trump beat them all. So now Trump is supposed to start listening to them? Not likely. Why change an approach that has taken Trump this far?

The problem is, Trump, while busy shooting himself in the foot, is missing opportunity after opportunity to go after Clinton. As a campaign, the Trump team made almost no use of the State Department Clinton email report. The same was true for the terrible jobs report. It didn't respond well to Clinton's much-discussed anti-Trump speech last week. And even on the core allegations against Trump University, the campaign hasn't offered a coherent defense, even though there is one to be made.

Republicans who would be willing to appear on television as surrogates to speak on Trump's behalf say they receive no guidance at all from the campaign. If they defend Trump, they do it on their own initiative, and not with any sort of coordination from the campaign.

Trump is doing it all by himself.

Trump could also fix his current situation all by himself. He's done it before. Remember that during the Wisconsin primary campaign, Trump made a number of damaging mistakes — attacking Ted Cruz's wife, bashing Scott Walker, badly botching a simple abortion question. Trump lost, later admitted some regret, made some changes, and ultimately regrouped. Although his followers cite what they believe is Trump's steadfastness, he can change when he wants.

It is understandable that Trump thinks little of his Republican former rivals, but it is also true that a general election campaign is different from a primary campaign. Presidents win both. Trump, so far, seems stuck in a primary campaign. "This campaign is running on one cylinder," notes Strategist One. It's operating without the basics — like, say, a communications shop — that make campaigns run. It has promised to get up to speed, but it hasn't. And it doesn't have forever.

Just for the record, here is the full text of Trump's remarks on Trump University in the San Diego speech:

So, I end up with a lawsuit. And it ends up in San Diego in federal court. And it's a disgrace the way the federal court is acting. Because it's a simple lawsuit. Everybody that took the so- called course — it's Trump University — is in San Diego.

And the trial — they wanted it to start while I'm running for president. The trial is going to take place sometime in November. There should be no trial. This should have been dismissed on summary judgment easily.

Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He's a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is not doing the right thing. And I figure what the hell? Why not talk about it for two minutes? Should I talk about it? Yes?

So we should have won. I'm being railroaded. So here's the story. Very simple story. A number of years ago, a long time ago now, I open up a little school. We called it Trump University, changed the name. We had probably — I don't know, a lot of people, like 10,000 people. The people — you, did you like it? She said she was there, she liked it.

Here's the story. So we open up, and it really was successful from the beginning, then we get these class action lawyers. They immediately sue. My people did a good job for a couple of reasons. One of the reasons was they had everybody that took the course sign like a report card. So we had let's say 10,000 people. Almost that many signed their report card. And the report cards are unbelievable.

By the way, without that, it's their word versus these people or me. But I'm getting railroaded by a legal system that — frankly, they should be ashamed because this is a case that — I'll be here in November. Hey, if I win as president, it's a civil case. I could have settled this case numerous times.

But I don't want to settle cases when we're right. I don't believe in it. And when you start settling cases, do you know what happens? Everybody sues you because you get known as a settler. One thing about me, I am not known as the settler. And people understand that this whole thing, with this whole deal with the lawyers, class action lawyers are the worst. It's a scam.

So here's what happens. We're in front of a very hostile judge. The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he's given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative. I have a top lawyer who said he's never seen anything like this before.

So what happens is we get sued. We have a magistrate named William Gallo who truly hates us. And this is what? Now, the good news is it's a jury trial. But we can't even get a full jury. We're entitled to a jury. We want a jury of 12 people and you're going to watch. First of all, it should be dismissed before the trial, but if we have a trial, we'll go all the way. Watch how we win it because I have been treated unfairly. Very much like with the veterans, where I raised all that money, but on Tuesday, I'm announcing all of the groups that we've giving almost $6 million to.

You know, you turn things around. So here's the story. We have a law firm named Robbins Geller where basically, Robbins Geller is a spin-off of two law firms: Lerach Coughlin and Milberg Weiss. Two of those partners went to jail for an extended period of time for doing very bad things legally. This same group is the lawyers against.

So what happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that's fine. You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, OK? I think they're going to end up — I think they're going to love.

I think they're going to love me. So here's what happens. We get sued by a woman and she turns out to be a disaster for them. Her name is Tarla Makaeff and she rated on the report card — it's one two five, five being excellent, the highest mark. She gave me a five across the board, all fives. She then did a video saying it was fantastic, the most glowing video you have ever seen. She then sued me because she wanted her money back.

She was such a disaster that this judge — it was her against us. She was such a disaster that this judge allowed her to get out of the case. But we want her to be in the case. And the lawyer said, "Your honor, we want her to be in the case." He said she's out of the case. So now, we have others. So we said, "Dismiss the case. She's out of the case." "No, we won't dismiss the case."

So we have 10,000 surveys from former students giving Trump University rave reviews. It's called — and it's on the website — www.98percentapproval.com. OK?

Now, so we have Tarla — so we have Makaeff giving us these great numbers. Then we have another one. Bob Guillo, they used him. I think it was Bush — Jeb Bush, low energy. We have — we have these guys making commercials.

Now look, in all fairness, it hasn't hurt me much. Because, you know, they use this thing and every once in a while you have one. And we're going to win. But if I don't win, and even if I do win, we want to open — my kids will open it up again, because it was a terrific school. It was great. It was good.

So we have a guy named Bob Guillo. He appeared in a TV attack ad. Do you believe it? They used him in ads against me. I had 66,000 negative ads, over $100 million. In Florida alone during the big primary, which I won in a landslide, we had 15,000 negative ads, and I won. I almost wonder what do ads mean, if you want to know the truth.

So you have this guy Bob Guillo. He appeared in TV attack ads even though he rated the programs a five, meaning excellent, the top mark, across the board. His primary complaint was he would have liked to have more comfortable chairs. OK? Unbelievable.

Then we have a guy named Art Cohen, and he was late to file. So he signed a survey in which he rated the program either a four or a five. I will tell you this, how smart was it to ask everybody that took the course to sign a report card? OK?

Now, you know what the lawyers are saying? The lawyers are saying, "Oh, but they were forced; 10,000 people were forced; they were forced." And you have pictures. We actually have videotapes of people. They weren't forced. A professor said, "Would you sign how you like it?" So that's it.

So, he signed all fives and fours, out of a possible — the highest marks. And indicated that his only complaint was the lack of nice lunch sandwiches. OK? Think of it.

So he was late. So they went to the judge and the judge said, "He's late; why don't you file under RICO, organized crime?" Now, we've all been sued in business for RICO, even Papa John probably. Were you ever sued? Everybody. RICO's like — but they ended it pretty much.

So I get sued. Here's a guy give me all good marks. He's late. So they're starting a new lawsuit. Now, here's the thing. This law firm, because this is like a life study. This law firm gave a lot of money to the attorney general of New York, who is a total lightweight. His name is Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Schneiderman accepts their money, goes to meet with President Obama in Syracuse when Obama was in Syracuse. And in the next day or two files a lawsuit against me because they — in my opinion, they gave him a contribution; then goes to see Obama.

You sort of see how the system works, folks. It's a bad system, let me tell you.

So Obama — Obama meets with this dopey Eric Schneiderman, who hates our governor and he wants to run for governor, but I don't think it's going to happen. Go up to — they go up to Syracuse, meets with Obama, and he files a lawsuit.

So, bottom line is this. People said, "You can settle." In fact, a lot of people said, "Oh, before you run, you should settle." I said, "I don't care; the people understand it." And they use it.

So when I have 10,000 people, and when we have mostly unbelievable reviews, how do you settle? And in fact when the case started originally, I said, "How can I settle when I have a review like this? Every review is good." Now, I should have settled, but I'm glad I didn't.

So I'll be seeing you in November either as president — and I will say this. I have all these great reviews. But I will say this. I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself. I think it's a disgrace that he's doing this. And I look forward to going before a jury, not this judge, a jury and we will win that trial. We will win that trial. Check it out. Check it out, folks.

And you know, I tell this to people — November 28th, I think it's scheduled for; shouldn't be a trial; should be a summary judgment dismissal.

By the way, friends of mine that are great lawyers, in fact one of them represents you, said, "How the hell do you get sued under RICO for a guy that took a course, loved the course, said great things about the course, and then you get sued under RICO?"

It is a disgrace. Now, I'm talking about Bernie Sanders has a rigged system. It is rigged. I'm talking about I had a rigged system, except we won by so much. I will tell you, this court system — the judges in this court system, federal court. They ought to look into that Judge Curiel because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace. OK?

But we'll come back in November. Wouldn't that be wild if I'm president and I come back to do a civil case?