No, I didn't watch the video because I've listened to what the man had to say in the past and concluded he's a total loon.
Why is it you continue to believe the utterances of self serving individuals with an obvious political agenda rather than ever bother to read actual court documents filed in every post election lawsuit that not only presents the claims they assert but further, provides countervaling facts and evidence that refutes such?
You're wrong about every case Giuliani presented was dismissed on lack of standing. While he went all out proclaiming massive voter fraud in the media, when it came time to proving his assertions in court - when the Judge asked him if he was asserting fraud - he demured and stated "this is not a fraud case". There is not only legal transcripts available online of such but also taped audio recordings of that hearing. The reason he did that was because he knew if he lied in court he would face sanctions or disbarment. As things currently stand, he's presently under investigation and has been recommended for disbarment by over 1,000 legal scholars, Judges, DAs, etc., for knowingly promoting false narratives.
Having a legal background myself, I have actually read the court filings produced in all post election lawsuits and entirely concur with the judgments made by each and every Judge in every state that ruled on such cases. Most of the suits were entirely frivilous - without merit or standing - and were filed primarily for political PR reasons so that those less educated into the intricacies of how the legal system operates would naively believe there was actual merit to the claims being made when there wasn't.
In every single case wherein Plaintiffs' claims were heard and so called 'evidence' presented, Judges excoriated their counsel for producing affidavits from unqualified "expert witnesses", doctered legal documents, presenting testimony from previously indicted 'con artists', etc. In PA, one Judge went so far to proclaim "This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent."
If you're seriously interested in knowing actual facts as opposed to what political mouthpieces are telling you believe, read court documents. Guaranteed, Mike Lindell is going to lose his case, as too Sidney Powell, Fox, et al, because none of their assertions are ever able to stand up against provable evidentiary facts.