An objective analysis of the facts presented in the article establish that Trump, through his charity, donated services to Eric's charity until it was self-sustaining. Then Trump, once the charity grew beyond it's original scope, started charging market value, that he also underwrote with cash donations of his own.
TLDR, Trump primed the pump with his bucket o' water and dared drink from the river that flowed from the tap, while also keeping it primed as needed from time to time.
An objective analysis of the facts presented in the article establish that Trump, through his charity, donated services to Eric's charity until it was self-sustaining. Then Trump, once the charity grew beyond it's original scope, started charging market value, that he also underwrote with cash donations of his own.
TLDR, Trump primed the pump with his bucket o' water and dared drink from the river that flowed from the tap, while also keeping it primed as needed from time to time.
So he charged the charity fair market value but still donated back a portion of it?
In the year cited in the article the charge was 100k for services, and the donation from Trump was also exactly 100k. 100% offset.
Is it fair to say that technically all transactions were lawful?
Yes. The author's beef is that he(r) doesn't approve of the way someone else raises money to give away.