I've listened to the first half of this and he doesn't explain why Ambrose, who is still under investigation, was allowed to say Mass and give a homily. He also doesn't explain why he allowed his interview of a possible Orthodox to be posted online. Is this addressed in this sermon?
It is telling that this guy pops up out of nowhere and is given access to the altar and faithful, even while still under investigation, but a brother priest of the pious union who's story is clearly known, is asked to explain himself and where he stands on the Faith.
Yes, there is clearly a double-standard. We *should* be red-lighting the "masses" of this bishop until we figure out A) is he still schismatic B) was he properly ordained/consecrated at all, etc.
On the other hand, another brother priest who has a long, known and spotless reputation (Fr. Zendejas) is attacked by Fr. Pfeiffer, who advises his followers to avoid Fr. Zendejas' Masses! Truth is stranger than fiction.
If I were writing a book, and described this situation, people would certainly attack my writing ability ("ridiculous", "too imaginative", "not realistic")