Chicken Vinny doesn't have much to say about Wallace's interview in CFTRJ. He says he suspected from positive "conservative" reviews of the book that Ehrman had been misrepresented. He doesn't actually find any misrepresentation, and you can feel the sorrow, but that he makes a point of this speaks for Vinny's childishness. Anyone who gauges possibilities by way of the nature of the source this way (citing "conservative" or "liberal" as a cause for suspicion) has already indicated that he doesn't have the mental beans to evaluate arguments on their own terms.
In any event, the only thing Chicken Vinny really has to say is this about something mentioned by a Christian he asked about this. The Christian quoted Wallace as saying, "The fact is that scholars across the theological spectrum say that in all the essentials - not in every particular, but in all essentials - our New Testament manuscripts go back to the originals." (TCFTRJ p.71-72) Chicken Vinny is desperate to say anything that makes Wallace look bad, and since he doesn't have the ability to actually argue points of textual criticism (for all he gets is second-hand from his worship of Bart Ehrman) he says:
I thought this smacked of comparing apples and oranges. A liberal scholar who agrees that it is possible to get back to the originals in all essentials might be saying something very different than a conservative scholar simply because a liberal scholar who does not affirm the resurrection, the virgin birth or the divinity of Jesus would not consider very many things to be essential.
Now that's a stupid comment. Whether the liberals believe in these essentials or not does not change their view of the textual reliability of the passages that relate those essentials. Clearly Chicken Vinny is on a permanent mental vacation with this one. And as we'll see, everything else.