1) claiming that it was such a wonderful act of unity and that the "devil" caused this controversy
2) refers disparagingly to "Team Vigano"
3) says not sure if Vigano or "Team Vigano" is behind this
4) says a lot of speakers put their reputations on the line -- this means that he had a hodge-podge of pseudo-Trads (including Novus Ordo "priests" at this conference that didn't want to be tainted by association with +Vigano's position
5) all the speakers agreed to a theme (hogwash, since the topics were all over the map), a theme of "unifying" ... so an Ecuмenical unity based around the least common denominator
6) claims that +Vigano didn't want to do an interview but an intervention
7) Matt objects, saying that he has to know what it's about because we have a "theme" (again, BS, as the topics were all over the map, and included a bunch of Novus Ordites)
8) says that he told +Vigano he'd have to know what the video was about first because he had a "commitment" to the other speakers.  READ:  other Novus Ordite speakers probably demanded there would be no "sedevacantist" types of discussions in order to participate.  Reminds me of how Roncalli refused to condemn Communism so the schismatics would attend V2
9) first day of the conference is when the video came
10) "incredibly" he's accused of censoring the video
11) claims that it came on the first day of the video and that he never saw it ... but then admits that
12) he "spot-checked" the video and found the references to "sedevacantism" ... in other words, he absolutely "censored" it based on the "sedevacantist" content, despite a minute early calling it "incredible" that he was accused of "censorship"
13) says he has "friends" who are "sedevacantists" (where have we heard that crap before?)
14) says he couldn't use it to end the conference because it was a 1) video, 2) with static content (i.e., vs. an interview he could guide to the topics he wanted and away from ones he wanted to avoid) and 3) [the real reason] because the topic was about a "controversial issue", which undermined the intent of the conference to form "unity" ... with the +Schneiders and the +Muellers of the world (i.e. the Conciliarists).  This represents nothing less than a total sellout to the Conciliars, the gatekeepr pseudo-/quasi- Trads
15) admits that he can't have a "Bishop" like Stickland associated with "sedevacantism"

Bottom Line:  he's trying to form a watered down least-common-denominator Ecuмenical "unification" of as many flavors of conservative Catholic that he could put together ... translating to the greatest possible follower base and widest audience ... to maximize profits.  And this video is damage control to prevent him from losing a large part of his financial base, Traditional Catholics.

Again calls out "Team Vigano" (something that doesn't exist and he's made up, making it seem like a conspiracy), and blames the "devil" for sabotating this wonderful "unity".  "Unity" in WHAT, Matt?  This is the same Ecuмenical nonsense that Vatican II is built on, where we'll form a unity based on the various points people have in common ... rather than rooted in truth and in principle.

He "blames" "sedevacantism" on Francis, as if "sedevacantism" is "blameworthy".

I saw half of it. Michael Matt claims at the time he posted this defense of himself, he hadn't even seen the Vigano video or read the statement. Highly unlikely

He makes contradictory statements throughout his video.  He didn't view it, giving the impression he had no idea what was in it.  But then says he saw references to "sedevacantism" in a transcript (reducing not having seen it to a meaningless technicality) and that it's the reason he didn't present it at the conference, because it would offend his Novus Ordo kumbaya love-fest.

M-O-N-E-Y. That is what MM is really admitting, that the Trad Inc. cash flow is the motivation in suppressing Viganò's video.

Right, he's appealing to "Trad Inc." by redefining "Trad" as including quasi-conservative (i.e. not openly heretical) types like Strickland and the Novus Ordo "priests" who appeared at his conference.

Interesting comments under MM’s explanation at Gloria TV:

https://gloria.tv/share/uGfvzGeFd9vt3BdayJKQRVHz7

Great harm comes to Traditional Catholicism by this crop of grifters who have shown up to make a living off being "celebrities" ... when their only real-life skills (to get real jobs) might get them a job bagging groceries.  Since their livelihood depends on it, they have to appeal to as broad an audience as they can.

Where were these Trad Inc. celebrities before Summorum Pontificuм? They did not exist.
One might argue them to be a "new generation" that replaced the not-so-celebrity trad leaders of the 1970s/80s/90s, but that argument falls flat.
The old trad leaders did not make livings off of their efforts. Michael Davies was a grammar school teacher. Patrick Henry Omlor was a family man. Hutton Gibson too was a family man, although his game show winnings and Hollywood son made him a celebrity of a different sort. Frs. Wathan, Wickens, and Nelson were all original cancelled priests in the USA. Abbé Georges de Nantes and Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga were cancelled priests in France and Mexico respectively.
To be a trad writer was to be poor and outcast, not brining in hundreds of thousands of dollars through the media and certainly not holding conferences where half or more of the speakers are non-trads.
"Unite the Clans" translates as (re)unite Indulters to the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo. Even if this is not a primary intention of those involved, it is the practical and final end of this effort.

So, he expressed outrage over accusations of "censorship" ... and then basically admits that he censored it.  It's his conference, and his choice, so he would have been better served simply to admit that he "censored" the video and then explain why he did it.

What's more at issue is the nature of this "union" of "clans" in the first place.

There's also no conspiracy by "Team Vigano" but simply a lot of individuals who have come to the same conclusion or opinion.  He's attributing these criticisms to the devil and to some nefarious group named "Team Vigano" instead of realizing that many individuals came to the same conclusion on their own.  In fact, at one point, he even implied that +Vigano himself may have been behind this "organized campaign" to go after him.  So much for healing the "rupture" between himself and +Vigano.  He knows that he gets a lot "views" when he interviews +Vigano, and so that's the rupture he's most concerned about.

Initial comments at the Remnant seem not to be buying MM’s explanations either:

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/6835-censoring-vigano-michael-matt-responds

At the moment, the Remnant is 0 wins/7 losses in the comments section (which includes a couple great ones by one of our own).