Including exculpatory evidence?
Yes. Getting evidence first introduced and then admitted into evidence considered by a court is a tricky process.
Trials are won or lost on it.
Trump’s supposed 50 cases filed, including by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, and Rudy and Jenna Ellis, were heavy on expectations and recitations and summaries on what the evidence would show, but rather light in the way of direct evidence submitted. Amateurs. The big firms chickened out and resigned to their everlasting shame when their other clients intimidated them for helping Trump. A shameful chapter in American advocacy.
They'll just deem it "not exculpatory." Everybody agrees that the crowd believed the election was stolen. Heck, that was the majority of the content of the so-called "rally" as well.
The trial will be, "even if the assertion is true, Trump needlessly called the rally and got the crowd excited. He should have respected the legal system instead."
Mind you, this is the same legal system that Congress and the DOJ used to falsely accuse him of "Russian collusion." Which conclusion is still, to this day, believed by at least a third of the public. After all, the government never lies, and courts always reach the right conclusion.
The institutions are rotten. They are beyond repair. They are lost. The bad guys are the good guys, and the good guys are the bad guys. See you in the camps!