[dang]

Ok, I take your point that you were asking in good faith. The line between question and insinuation can be blurry. The fact is, though, that astroturfer/shill/bot/foreign-agent/paid-troll/infiltrating-spies is the explanation internet users reflexively invoke at the slightest provocation, nearly always with zero evidence. The overwhelming majority of the time, it's nothing but a sinister, sensational fantasy. This poisons discussion and community. Therefore we have a rule asking people not to post such things, but rather to email us at [e-mail] if they're worried about manipulation. That way we can base the response on something objective (by looking at the data) and the threads won't go haywire down the poisonous path.

I don't think you need to invoke "pro-Trump readers" to explain why a story like this might get upvoted. Not everyone is a passionate partisan.