Here's my take on +Vigano. I don't understanding this thing about not "trusting" him. I think it's code for not liking him. What's there to trust or not trust? He's not actually DOing anything. It's not like he's starting up a separate Traditional movement that would be drawing people away from the existing Traditional groups. In his current position, he's actually opening up a lot of eyes regarding the issues with Vatican II among the conservative NO types like Taylor Marshall and Patrick Coffin. I don't see him drawing any Traditional Catholics closer to the Novus Ordo; rather, I see him drawing some conservative NO Catholics closer to Tradition. I have not known one Traditional Catholic to express the sentiment that, "ah, because of +Vigano, I should go rejoin the Novus Ordo."
He's actually gone to the RIGHT of the neo-SSPX now. Unlike +Fellay, who claims that 95% of Vatican II is fine and that it just needs some corrections, +Vigano asserts that the entire thing is radically defective and needs to be pitched. While +Fellay has basically agreed to applying a hermeneutic of continuity to Vatican II, +Vigano categorically rejects that and claims this is not possible. Unlike the neo-SSPX, he has stood up against the morality of the ναccιnєs ... and even the entire scamdemic and the ɛƖɛctıon fraud, which the +Fellay-ite SSPX has refused to touch even though it desperately needs to be addressed. He's even publicly floated the idea that Bergoglio may not be a legitimate pope (deferring in this speculation, however, to the Church's judgment -- not unlike EXACTLY what Archbishop Lefebvre did). I have not once seen +Vigano refer to Bergoglio as Francis or Pope or Holy Father ... he constantly just calls him Bergoglio, like the most dogmatic sedevacantists do.
So I feel that +Vigano needs to be supported rather than constantly attacked. It's fine, of course, to disagree with him one one or another of his positions, but this total rejection of +Vigano I find absurd and childish.