But Steve Bannon, Trump’s choice for chief of staff, stated publicly that he positioned Breitbart as “a platform for the alt-right,” that is, for the newest incarnation of white nationalism.

Here's some direct quotes from Bannon: e.g. see http://www.wsj.com/articles/steve-bannon-on-politics-as-war-1479513161

"Our definition of the alt-right is younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.”

That's what he says he means when he says "alt-right." But instead of allowing that, critics inject their own unsubstantiated definition of "alt-right" so they can pretend he's talking about being and giving a platform to white nationalism.

It's as if I insisted that "liberal" actually means "hate speech" instead of what you mean when you call yourself a liberal. Voila, Tamar says publicly that she supports hate speech.

Bannon also says that Breitbart is a platform for “libertarians... Zionists... the conservative gay community... proponents of restrictions on gay marriage... economic nationalism... populism... " and “the anti-establishment.”

“We provide an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought—we set it up that way... and the alt-right is a tiny part of that.”

so he says Breitbart allows a wide range of expressions while people who haven't visited Breitbart because it's so evil, say that it's a white nationalist hate site.

Finally, Bannon also concedes that the alt-right has “some racial and anti-Semitic overtones” - but makes it clear he has zero tolerance for such views. He has strong support from Zionist organizations who say he is owed an apology for the smears and even disgruntled ex-employees agree there's no grounds to accuse him. But still the accusations continue.

If the expectation is that if he doesn't shut up dissenting voices, obviously he agrees with them: seems to me that Bannon exemplifies François-Marie Arouet's "‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" while others have corrupted it to "your views disagree with mine so I will demonize you and try to expel you from society."

Re Sessions: again, critics prefer to rely on 30-year old accusations rather than his more recent track record. This is being amply covered elsewhere so I'll limit myself to one citation from his home state: http://www.weeklystandard.com/in-alabama-jeff-sessions-desegregated-schools-and-got-the-death-penalty-for-kkk-murderer/article/2005461

Re actors reading out speeches to Pence: we all have personal attitudes to privacy and appropriateness- and precedent. Trump won't want scolding or speechifying whenever he's trying to be a member of the audience and nor would you. But IMHO this is one that he should have let go. Don't sweat the small stuff.