it's a nonprofit he directly benefits from because it has his name on it. he directly benefits from it by using it as a way to sway political power. he directly benefits from it through financial gains paid through the organization.

the entire concept of the foundation is contingent on his financial success. something of which he is well known for destroying lives for.

so tell me, how many of those ruined lives were acceptable for the good that his charity does? how many more lives must be ruined for the good to continue to be acceptable? would you find it acceptable if your life was destroyed to continue the good his charity does? would you be willing to accept your life to be ruined or ended to support the continuation of his charity?

I don't understand why you don't see the obvious correlation between the two so I'll over simplify it.

bad man makes bad money making people suffer. bad money makes good stuff happen under bad man name. bad man still bad man doing good stuff for bad reasons.

you sit and justify his actions by arguing he's doing good things. I question if he's doing good things just to do them or if they're a byproduct of him "cleansing" his name. after all, bad men do bad things. Ever heard of Alfred Nobel?