I don't see that article addresses any of the points I am making. Back to this article you fall into a a somewhat classic mistake in analyzing fascism:
"The idea of the fascist dictator creates a false impression that it can be understood by examining the leader alone. This practice offers an alibi for the existing institutions which allowed for it to take place."
I don't think analyzing Trump tells you whether this is fascism or not. For instance Trump's first term wasn't equal with his second term in terms of fascist behavior. What matters for calling this fascism is his followers and they have rejected all logic - which is not the same as corruption.