>>your quoting numbers doesn't mean anything without it. The only fact in this story is that context was provided, but you chose to ignore it in your first post.
Disagree. The numbers have significant evidence value if they're reproducible and accurate.
If you want to propose a hypothesis as to cause - then you can. But then it's a hypothesis to be proven (or more accurately to try to disprove) rather than a "voila" proof as the MSM would have it or "the only fact in this story" as you would have it.
What you call "context" the author calls "thoughts" and I agree s/he can think whatever s/he likes. Doesn't make it true. If anything the opposite is true, since the way the hypothesis is stated is yet another example of the "voila" non sequitur attacks on Trump that I say are a consistent theme.
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
