Well, alas, there's something to be said that their founder didn't understand himself.  That's why you have this tug-o-war.  "WE are the true children/follower of +Lefebvre.  No, WE are."  And both sides can produce +Lefebvre quotes to back up their position.  In the early 1980s, you find material from +Lefebvre where he was pursuing an agreement with Rome where he was extremely sympathetic to Rome.  That's when he ousted The Nine.  Then by 1986, around the time of Assisi, he was saying that he believed he might have to go sedevacantist and that he and Bishop de Castro Mayer had been closet sedevacantists for 20 years but "preferred to wait".

There are two problems with this analysis:

1) It is contradicted by Rome (e.g., That Rome understood Msgr. Lefebvre as having the "no practical accord before a doctrinal resolution" as his principle of action since La Pointet is proven by the quote in Part 1 of the interview with the quote from conciliar GREC/Roman priest Fr. Michel Lelong ), who certainly understood Msgr. Lefebvre of having this principle since 1988.  So it would be odd that both Rome and Msgr. de Galarreta (in his Reflections paper at Albano) would think such a principle to exist when it does not, and Msgr. Fellay himself admitting the existence of the principle in the Cor Unum of March 2012, when he hallucinated that "the new situation in Rome demands a new response from us," and announced he was moving away from it.

2) The "wavering Lefebvre" argument sees only the external manifestation of the operative principle, without taking that operative principle itself into account: As Msgr. Williamson again explains in Part 1-2, Msgr. Lefebvre wanted to help Rome back to Tradition, and his willingness or unwillingness to negotiate always depended upon his perception of Rome's willingness to come back.  So when it looked like Rome was open to Tradition, he inclined towards them.  And when it looked like they were falling into the abyss, he backed away from them.  When he lost faith in the intentions of Rome in 1988, that was it.  His principles never changed, only extrinsic conditions did.  It was for this reason that the starting point for GREC in 1997 was to reestablish trust. 

The Romans understand Lefebvre far better than his progeny (or the sedevacantists).

We've watched 4 parts of the interview at this point.  There is, we understand, a 5th part of around 10 minutes.  Thus far, nothing has been discussed about the scandals.  For me, of course, that is disappointing.

Nevertheless, the interviews reveal some interesting history.  +W doubles down on the Jєωs, which I couldn't welcome more.  You'll never hear the present leaders of the Society excoriating the Jєωs like +W does.  Why? Because, as I believe, the Jєωs basically own the fallen SSPX.  IMO, You don't build a 40 million dollar monastery in VA with simple contributions from the SSPX faithful.  No, that's Jєω money!
But the failure to even mention the present sex scandals is a disgrace, IMO.  These incidents priestly predations are not one-offs.  They reveal a clear pattern of sɛҳuąƖ misconduct and cover ups, going back probably to the 70s, long before the Archbishop met his Maker.  At least, say something.  At least, make some attempt to explain.

Good point. Where is all this money coming from? There is no way the simple faithful can afford such monuments.

Long story short, the SSPX was, and should be, in the "mission chapel" or "lifeboat" business. Not building parish CHURCHES, monuments, or anything like that. They should be all about building infrastructure for priests to travel around, stay here or there, say Mass here or there (some chapels larger, some smaller) and serving as many Faithful in the United States as possible. You know, saving souls and keeping the Faith alive. Transmitting the Faith to the next generation via Traditional doctrine, Mass, and sacraments. The only goal of +ABL.

I don’t see +W giving much input on the sex scandals, since they’ve popped-up over the years even from his early Winona seminary days.