Is Trump the Nazi because Nazis attend his rallies?

I am new to this logical fallacy game. So you'll have to forgive me if I ask a question which has an obvious answer. I was listening to a station which I usually listen to who doesn't like Trump much if at all. In the course of an interview, the person being interviewed said, "Trump is a Nazi because Nazis attend his rallies."
I'm not arguing the point of whether or not Trump is a Nazi. What I'm arguing is the evidence that this particular person produced for his conclusion. If the Nazis attended a rally for Joseph Biden, with that make Joseph Biden a Nazi. I couldn't quite make this fit into the ad hominem fallacy. Without getting political, what fallacy is this? I thought ad hominem meant that what a person was saying was wrong because there was something wrong with the speaker. This conclusion has nothing to do what he was saying.

Check out the ad hominem guilt by association: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association<>. This wouldn't be a direct example, but the spirit of the fallacy is the same.

To analyze for fallacy, a less tendentious question would have been adequate, imo.
If a Roman Catholic priest or an Imam or a rabbi attended a rally for candidate X, would the conclusion that X was a Catholic/Muslim/Jewish be valid?
An even more pointed example: "If libertarians attended a Nazi rally, would the Nazis be thought libertarian?"

The examples make clear imo that the kind of question, and who asks it, reveals more about the questioner than about the subject, and, such words as "Nazi", "denier", "commie" are used more for their emotional value than for honest reasoning.

"Association" is a technique news channels have long used, and is often done merely by choosing the order of segments. Candidate X, for example, may be discussed just after a segment on a case of police brutality, and the association is made.

Trump is a self-avowed ( White ) Nationalist, and a demonstrable racist :
From the Federal Government website of the EEOC .
" “Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person’s foreign accent or comments like, ‘Go back to where you came from,’ whether made by supervisors or co-workers,” it continued. That's from the Federal Government definition of the expressions used by Trump in his attack of 4 elected members of the US House.

And he attracts like minded White Supremacists to his rally's. Some are Nazi's. Some are your garden variety white supremacists. Trump would disavow any connection to being a Nazi, ( that would be political suicide) and just because some Nazi's attend his rally's doesn't make him a Nazi. However they clearly identify with Trump as opposed to Joe Biden or any of the Democratic candidates. Trumps racism is fully shared by Nazi's and he certainly courts their votes. I guess if he quacks like a goose, and goose steps like a goose, one might say he sure looks like a Nazi goose. He certainly speaks in terms that are music to the ears of white supremacists such as Nazi's.

There's probably several fallacy's that would describe this Nazi argument.
Weak Analogy
Explanation
Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison. Their logical structure is this:
(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.

Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively.

Seems that this is a (tacit) Affirming the Consequent:
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

If Nazis attend his rallies that means he is a Nazi.
Nazis attend his rallies, therefore...

"Trump is a Nazi because Nazis attend his rallies."

This is what I call the Beating Around the Bush fallacy. And with Trump's recorded misogyny regarding grabbing women "by the pussy", it is indeed aptly titled. The commentator should have stated that Trump is a Nazi because of the attitudes he expresses openly and freely. The presence of Nazi mentality is further compounded by his knowing that his repugnant rhetoric will attract Nazis to his rallies and when they come, addressing them again with that rhetoric. Trump is a racist, lying, misogynist, sex-offending, arrogant and self-obsessed bully. That such a person can be elected to such high office says at least as much about the population that voted this criminal to such high office as it says about the criminal himself. I hope that Trump is climbing up to a very steep fall. And I hope it will be televised. Or posted to YouTube.

Some could make an argument, I suppose, that Trump has Nazi tendencies, but the argument you cite is a fallacy for the reasons that Dr. Hobbs and Dr. Bennett explain.

Guilt by association.

What's often called "McCarthyism" was a specific version of guilt by association in which an individual, organization, or idea was associated in some way with communism. An association was made between the target of McCarthyism and communism by linking both through some shared idea. For instance, in the 1960s some anti-communists attacked support for civil rights by pointing out that the Communist Party of the United States also supported the civil rights movement. It was then argued that supporting civil rights was tantamount to supporting communism. Here is the form of the argument. Since the fall of Soviet communism, the McCarthyist version of guilt by association has become less common. The current most common version of guilt by association attempts to link the target with Nazism or, more specifically, Adolf Hitler. When guilt by association takes this form, the sub-fallacy of argumentum ad Nazium, also known as "the Hitler card", is committed.

I see it as an extension/expansion of Godwin’s Law, which has been humorously dubbed “reductio ad Hitlerum.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

This is an ad hominem / guilt by association fallacy. One could say:
"Hillary Clinton is a felon because people who are felons attend her rallies." It does not logically follow.