Some commentators dismiss plaintiff's case on the ground that defendant was only uttering an opinion, and these are black letter law protected speech.
But it is difficult to maintain this stance. For these appear to be factual claims. Did Trump have a "deal" with "Vladimir Putin's oligarchy?" This either occurred or did not. The "overarching" element may well be a mere opinion but that is a different matter.
President Trump objected to this statement emanating from CNN: "Soliciting dirt on your opponents from a foreign government is a crime. Mueller should have charged Trump campaign officials with it." In like manner, this has all the earmarks of a factual claim. To wit: The Donald is guilty of criminal behavior.
Nor can the Washington Post escape this charge. Plaintiff objects to the statement to the effect that Trump's campaign "tried to conspire with" a "sweeping and systemic" attack by Russia against that election. Again, either this occurred or it did not. It is difficult to see why this is a mere opinion, and not a claim about a fact.