"Defendants further falsely state or imply that [Plaintiff], in his official capacity, was lying, spying, conspiring to commit a coup, and acting unethically." These facts render it plausible that the disputed statements can "reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual." The implication that Plaintiff is part of the "Deep State" is a closer call, but that too can be interpreted as stating facts when considered in the overall context. The "Deep State" implication plausibly resembles this latter example. Simply accusing someone of being part of the "Deep State" may be an expression "that a person's political outlook is not respectable."