Yeti:

Here is a rather long excerpt from Palmquist's video, in which he explains the dishonesty of Church Militant:

OK, fine. Church Militant is dishonest, you say.. But Palmquist’s defense of himself does not necessarily prove that CM’s coverage of his story was dishonest. He tells his side of it. That’s all. Tell you what, call CM and ask them about the video. I’ve talked to them on several occasions. Their phone number is readily available online. Christine herself may even call you back and explain. If you’re totally objective in your questioning about CM reportage, and you’re not rude and combative, I’m certain that Niles or some other staff member will be happy to satisfy your doubts in a calm and deliberative manner.

 
Ladislaus:

Did you even watch the Palmquist video?  He asserts that nearly all of it is wrong and was clearly spun to serve their agenda.  He's no friend of the SSPX and wasn't defending them, focusing solely on Voris' report about him.

Sorry, no cigar.  It is not a question at this point of "policing"  errant Society priests or misbehaving laity.  Most of the cases involving pervert SSPX priests and laity were, (and are), known by the SSPX leaders right up to the top.  Far from being shot by "firing squad," great pains have been taken by the Society to cover up and hide them away.  Only when forced by the investigative reporting of CM were a few of these priests turned over to the authorities.  Only when parents of abused children stepped forward and loudly complained was any action taken to expose and correct the situation.
The Society has, at all costs, endeavored to protect a false image of traditional Catholic probity, completely separated from the corrupt New Church mainstream. Most of the SSPX faithful had no idea, for decades, that these evil things were going on until Michael Voris and Christine Niles began to expose them in April of 2020.
Matto recognizes the "smoke of sơdơmy."  He admits it openly.  But, alas, he goes on to complain, "If only we had honest reporters to do this investigation."  I see nothing dishonest in CM reporting.  If there is dishonest reporting going on here, then, personally, I would like to know about it in order to stand corrected.

Which is what I said. 
I said the worst aspect so far was the cover up.
But just about every organisation covers it up.  Do you think for example if a high profile Opus Dei priest was guilty of abuse, or CM had ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ abuse happen on one of its Lenten cruises or retreats at sea they would not cover it up? 
They covered up Voris's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lifestyle over 20 years for the first 12 years of his pencil twirling condemnations of Bishops.
They are the pot calling the kettle black.  But I don't deny the kettle is black. 

Which is what I said.
I said the worst aspect so far was the cover up.
But just about every organisation covers it up.  Do you think for example if a high profile Opus Dei priest was guilty of abuse, or CM had ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ abuse happen on one of its Lenten cruises or retreats at sea they would not cover it up?
They covered up Voris's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lifestyle over 20 years for the first 12 years of his pencil twirling condemnations of Bishops.
They are the pot calling the kettle black.  But I don't deny the kettle is black.

You make a good point about Voris covering up his own past ... until an NO bishop was on the verge of outing him.  That's something I would want to know before allowing my kids anywhere near him.  Sure, he may be an ex-sodomite, but that's like an ex-alcoholic, where you wouldn't give him the keys to your liquor cabinet.

With regard to the SSPX cover-up, obviously that's the entire point.  Nobody can prevent a sodomite from sneaking in here or there.  Nevertheless, there are lots of times that CM has argued cover-up, where that may not have been the case ... such as with Palmquist, or even with Angles.  There's no evidence, for instance, that anyone higher up in the SSPX knew what Angles was doing.  Palmquist denies that anyone at STAS other than his confessor knew anything about his inclinations, and that he did not manifest any of it openly but suppressed it all.  There were other situations where it's possible that some of the SSPX didn't find various accusations to be credible.

Was there SOME element of cover-up there in the SSPX?  I believe so, especially with the case of Fr. Abbet, for instance.  But unfortunately CM does a disservice by mixing truth with unsubstantiated insinuations, smears against Traditional Catholicism in general (which they sneak in every few sentences in their videos), and presenting various hypotheses as if they were proven fact.  But given that they pepper in fiction with fact, it makes the actual facts, the ones that SHOULD be addressed, harder to find.  And, actually, because there's so much falsehood there, it even leaves people wondering about the REAL cases, whether even those are true.  If someone mixes in truth with lies, one starts to have doubts about whether the truths are also not lies somehow.
So I can't understand why hollingsworth refuses to take an objective view of CM.

Tallin:
Do I believe that other Catholic organizations would not cover up similar abuses in the same way that SSPX has?  Maye so.  I don't know.
Did Voris cover up his own ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior over 20 years.  Again, maybe so.  I don't really know.  But early or late, Voris did make a full public confession of his sins, not only to a priest in the Confessional, but to the whole cувєr world.  The SSPX has not even come close to doing the same over at least the last 40 years.  Though it may be the pot calling the kettle black, I am happy to hear you admit, nevertheless, that the kettle is black.  It most certainly is.
And you're right.  The cover up is the worst aspect of all this.  I don't think that Palmquist is the real issue.  In a sense, he is just a side note, a poor, tragic figure, another hapless victim in the larger picture. i hope and pray that be able to repent before death, and find his way to Heaven.
I am persuaded, whatever Voris' past has been, that he and Niles have done some pretty solid reporting.

I agree.
Voris' past doesn't change the truth, nor does it invalidate everything he says or does for the rest of his life.
I like that summary "They are the pot calling the kettle black.  But I don't deny the kettle is black."

Could the competition between Opus Dei and the SSPX represent two masonic factions vying for power?

The “Church Militant” news-front, funded by Opus Dei, has been running a smear campaign against the SSPX going on six years now.

What is their motivation?

Opus Dei is a secret society operating within the Church by a unique & clandestine system known as Prelature.  They report only to the Pope.

From the mouth of Fr. Schmidburger, we also know the SSPX seeks a Prelature with Rome.

A prelaturized SSPX, with the TLM, long cassocks and Max Krah bank accounts could be a threat to Opus judei... no?

Yours thoughts?