Fr. Pfeiffer certainly intended to become a bishop. I think that there is no doubt about that.
We will learn at the General Judgment whether he is a bishop or not.
For now we cannot be sure therefore we must avoid his ordinands and not receive Confirmation from him.

You are correct. If Fr. Pfeiffer gave Confirmation it would be valid.

But I would certainly not go to confession to a Pfeiffer-ordained priest until he were to release a satisfactory conditional confirmation video.

Even if Fr P is a bishop, I still would avoid his priests because of the lack of seminary/theological training.  He certainly doesn't train them, because he's never there....flying all over the country to offer masses.  Fr Voigt told us that classes are haphazard and unstructured.  What the heck are they learning and who is teaching them?  It's a BIG concern.

.
A quick but imporatnt correction: the conditions under which simple priests can validly confirm is extremely narrow, and are certainly not met by Fr. Pfeiffer.  Kolar is correct that priests of the western rite may only validly confirm with special permission from the pope precisely because the power to confirm is a power of order (not of jurisdiction) that only the pope can activate.
.
http://thetradforum.com/index.php?topic=152.0 <--- link to the research which makes this clear. I researched this topic five years or so ago when Bishop Williamson was planning to 'delegate' Fr. Chazal to do confirmations in Austraulia, and sent my research to Fr. Chazal who agreed that there is no way he could have validly performed any confirmations.
.

Right, but it's not that the priest doesn't have the power of Orders necessary to confirm.  One could argue in this Crisis situation that God would supply the necessary permission.  I believe there were some independent Traditional priests before the SSPX bishops were around who administered Confirmation based on the notion of supplied jurisdiction.

I think you have it backwards in terms of power of Orders.  If priests lacked the power of Orders to confect the Sacrament, no amount of permission from the Pope could "activate" something that does not exist.  It's like with Confession.  Priest have the power of Orders to hear Confessions but absent jursidiction, they are ORDINARILY unable to validly absolve someone from their sins.  Of course the Church supplies in many different scenarios, and I believe that those same scenarios would apply to Confirmation as well.

.
Take it up with Prummer, Pohle, Smith, Conway, Woywod, Frasinetti, McGill, Connell, Tanquerey, Ott, and Fr. Chazal.  

No, you've got things completely reversed.  I can quote these theologians from your link to that effect if you desire, but I suggest that you reread them.

Ladislaus, you are clearly unfamiliar with the material on the topic.  Look at the link I posted, and then come back with an argument once you have some familiarity with the theology of the question.
.

You apparently are not capable of comprehending your own link.  Don't waste my time by forcing me to quote from your own link.

I'll just pick one, Smith who quotes Billot (see the bolded part):

We must be content to state briefly an answer, given by Billot, which appears to meet the difficulty in a satisfactory way.  According to this theologian the character of the priesthood includes the power to confirm; but by divine ordinance the valid exercise of that power is made conditional upon a commission received from the Head of the Church.  Thus the fact that the Church acknowledges as valid the confirmation administered by priests in the East does not make them ordinary ministers of the sacrament; it implies only a tacit commission formerly granted to them by the Holy See.

So the power is in the character of the priesthood but cannot be EXERCISED without the appropriate authorization ... similar to Confession.

and here's Pohle:

Some theologians have assumed that the papal delegation is not a mere extrinsic permission but implies an intrinsic perfectioning of the character of ordination by which the delegated priest receives the episcopal character.  Others hold with Suarez that the papal authorization merely gives to the delegated priest a higher extrinsic dignity which, together with his sacredotal character, suffices to enable him to administer the Sacrament validly.  Both hypotheses are unsatisfactory.  A simpler and more effective solution is that devised by Gregory of Valentia.  It was the will of Christ, he says, that both bishops and priests should be empowered to administer Confirmation, the former as ordinary ministers of the sacrament by virtue of the episcopal consecration the latter as its extraordinary ministers by virtue of the priesthood, leaving it to the pope to determine the manner of exercising this latent power.

Literally every theologian I have ever found on this topic says it is a matter of order, not jurisdiction. 

What are you babbling about?  I literally just cited two of the first three sources on that link and they say the OPPOSITE of what you claim.