According to this thread, Fr. Chazal also defended Fr. Pagliarani against the accusation spoke of by Fr. Hewko. So there is more than one Resistance priest that would defend Fr. Pagliarani in that situation.
By the way, there's also such a thing as John holding back on criticizing Mike, at least on January 1, because at that time there was not enough evidence of sin to warrant a public mention/criticism. In other words, the benefit of the doubt was being given.
But my point here is this: A benefit of the doubt, or defense of a given person TODAY is not a guarantee of life-long immunity from all charges in the future.
Anyone has the right to change his mind or position -- sometimes drastically -- as things develop, become clearer, and new evidence comes to light. Or else many of us would still today be with Fr. Pfeiffer's group, the SSPX, or even the Novus Ordo!
But we're not. I defended the SSPX gladly in 2006, for example. I wouldn't let anyone slander the priests or the government of the organization. But does that tie my hands in the future, if they were to decide to go off the rails and head back to Modernist Rome? Of course not!
Opposing a group isn't all that matters. Timing is important too. Luther opposed the pope too -- but he was about 500 years early, so he was to be condemned. The Old Catholics went off and stayed aloof from the Catholic Church structure after Vatican ONE. Are they our brothers in the Faith, even though they were about 100 years early? Of course not.
Hitting the accelerator at an intersection during a green light is actually required, but pressing the same accelerator at the same intersection just a few minutes later -- when the light happens to be red -- is reckless driving and a moving violation. Timing is important!