Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but the video you linked to is still up. This, despite the fact that the specific claims made have been roundly debunked. Pima county, the county referenced, has done a hand count and it matched the machine count almost exactly. That news is widely available.
These videos being up isn't contributing to the debate so much as providing a lot of smoke that can be pointed to as evidence of fire by people who mostly haven't watched them and can't be bothered to do their own research (I'm not accusing you of this, to be clear).
I really don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not a US citizen. I cannot stand Trump. I pretty much only care about this issue from an information architecture pov.
But ... from my understanding, a hand-count is not the same as an electoral audit. An audit exhaustively looks at the systems, procedures, and the path that the data has traveled in order to verify the result.
From what I'm aware of, that is what Trump people are disputing? Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
The Trump people are alleging that there was fraud, frequently with no specifics. Where they have made specific allegations, those allegations have been roundly disproved. They then continue to say there was fraud, see my previous statement about smoke.
The fundamental problem here is the impracticality of proving a negative. In order to conclusively demonstrate that there was no fraud of any kind we would need to have an audit trail from citizenship being granted (largely at birth) through votes being tabulated. That's impossible. So we have standards for what things we investigate and how we investigate them. Those standards have been surpassed out of an abundance of caution in virtually all cases this election cycle.
As an aside, it's interesting to me that the group which normally screams the loudest about government inefficiency and the waste that comes from the government are suddenly the people screaming that everything needs to be checked and rechecked at huge cost to the tax payer when there is very, very little chance of anything changing. This is going to be in textbooks in the future under the heading "Loss Aversion", which I guess means at least we'll get something out of the money we're lighting on fire?
These videos being up isn't contributing to the debate so much as providing a lot of smoke that can be pointed to as evidence of fire by people who mostly haven't watched them and can't be bothered to do their own research (I'm not accusing you of this, to be clear).