Fair question! The answer is no, it’s likely not. Here’s why.

/1 https://twitter.com/lisajaspie13/status/1317872401749659648

/2 in the clip, the people are suggesting that because an FBI agent who allegedly issued a subpoena has worked on child porn cars in the past, the subpoena must involve child porn.
This is either ignorant or bad faith or both, but it’s an opinion based on disclosed fact. https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1317849887438966784

/3 it’s an argument: since we see fact X, we can infer fact Y. It lays out the basis. It doesn’t matter that it’s very stupid. If you say “I think Dr. Smith molests children because his sign says ‘pediatrician’ and that’s close to ‘pedophile,’ that’s stupid but not defamatory.

/4 Moreover, separating unprotected fact from protected opinion is very context-driven. How would someone familiar with the speakers and venue be likely to see it?

A reasonable person familiar with Fox, @mariabartiromo, and @SenRonJohnson would expect bad faith propaganda.