Having seen this linked in the comments of another article, I read this with an open mind.
It fails pretty hard to convince or persuade that Trump is unfairly painted by the media as more of liar than he is.
The opening paragraph works well enough. The Steele dossier was definitely relied upon too heavily. That and your other examples suggest Trump critics say he is lying when he's just giving an opinion. Fair enough. I'm all for policing criticism of Trump to be accurate and judicious. And I'm all for rectifying any falsehoods from the left -- the original BLM protests were violent, indeed.
But the author doesn't provide any examples of accusations of Trump lies that were actually debunked. The paragraph on "pussygate" is too convoluted for meaning. And while misreporting Trump saying "big league" as "bigly" is probably true (I always thought it was the case), that's paltry. Citing only those two cases as lies that were debunked is a very weak argument.
By some estimates, Trump has made over 30,000 false or misleading claims. Politifact has fact-checked Trump over 1,000 times, going back to his "birther" claims, and the median rating for his 1,000 checks is False. Even his own supporters admits he exaggerates. But they won't break with him when he tells (and attempts to sustain) the biggest lie of all, the one conspicuously missing from this article: that the 2020 election was "stolen." Theirs, like the author's, seems a motivated ignorance.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt in this way: The word "lie" is stretched on both sides to include misleading claims, even exaggerations and embellishments. We would all do better to reign in the rhetoric and get more specific. Even fact-checkers tend to use gradations, such as Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire, because things don't always fit neatly into a binary. But we've all got to be buttoned up in this brave new world of viral memes and misinformation-promoting social media algorithms.
Finally, the use of copious scare quotes in this article was distracting, and did nothing to strengthen the author's case.
