I think that’s being overly charitable given what he’s said in the past and that he has a penchant for sledgehammer as hominem attacks and ridicule against people who criticize him as opposed to being precise in his counterpunches.
Taken in context, the sheer volume of his falsehoods weighs against his credibility in terms of giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps, but I'd still like politifact or snopes or whomever to fact check everyone without regard to their past, even if that includes people like David Duke or Richard Spencer. The mere appearance of bias makes it easier for them to point at the rest of the fact-checking org and say "now that you know that the fact checkers lie, let me tell you what really happened in the 'Holocaust'", and that's not something most people want to enable.
And since when are 'facts' dependent on the person who said them? Perhaps if they do depend on such, those 'facts' shouldn't be included in the purview of a fact-checking org.
Taken in context, the sheer volume of his falsehoods weighs against his credibility in terms of giving him the benefit of the doubt.