Look, it's fair to ask people to watch the public hearing video but I suspect it'll be a waste of my time.
Because your track record in this area is not great, is it?
You have hopped from debunked theory to debunked theory and as they're debunked you don't even acknowledge it, you just move on to the next one.
First it was how dead people were voting - easily debunked with a bit of spot checking
Then it was more people voted than registered - which was people simply using out of date or just plain wrong data. You claimed to have done your own analysis but have failed to provide it.
Then it was how Democrat observers were excluded - but they weren't, Trump's team admitted that in court
Then it was the affidavits - all the affidavits, all these witnesses of fraud. And you're claiming they haven't been looked at in court, but they have. They're just a mixture of hearsay, spurious complaints or people just not understanding how elections work.
Then there's the USPS dude - I'll focus on him a bit because this is why I suspect it'll be a waste of my time watching the public hearing.
Because I looked into this one in a bit more detail. You said he "[claimed] election fraud occurred at the USPS where he worked".
You then directed me at the audio of the interview he recorded. So I listened to it and found he did NOT claim fraud occurred. He just heard half an out of context conversation and said that his "mind might have made up the rest". That's a literal word for word quote from that interview.
You also said that the audio reveals the officers trying to get him to change his statement, which just isn't true. They went though what happened with the bloke and then read the affidavit which had been written for him. As they did and got to the bit which alleged fraud the dude admitted he couldn't stand by what Project Veritas had written.
You also said the audio would reveal the "sort of people" we're dealing with. In reality, it was a perfectly civil exchange and when they got to the part of the affidavit which used the word "interrogated" (in reference to a previous meeting between them) the bloke himself objected to the use of that word.
You also said the bloke recorded the meeting secretly which is, at best, half true because towards the end of it he revealed he'd been recording, they said that was fine and that he could continue.
Now, we all have our biases of course. And that affects how we process things. But you have a tendency towards paranoia and to infer nefarious intent, and that comes across in how you interpreted the audio. But what has happened to this USPS dude? Is he the star witness in the case that is going to crack this whole thing wide open? No, he's drifted back into obscurity. In your mind you probably think it's because "they" got to him, but the reality is he just heard half a conversation and has no actual evidence of any wrong doing. He didn't even hear the word "back dating".
When I pointed all this out to you, you just got cross that I'd bothered to listen to the audio you pointed me at and found it simply didn't say what you claimed . And this is why I suspect the public hearing won't say what you think it says either, but I'll try to make the time to listen.
And I don't know what you think I'm cheering. I am glad Trump isn't going to be President any more. That doesn't mean I'm doing cartwheels that Biden will be. I honestly don't know if Biden is a good thing or not. My main point right now is that Biden did win the election fair and square. I am yet to hear any compelling evidence to the contrary but if you have something which I've not seen then please present it and I'll have a look.