I would think we are all operating under the assumption that Trump has irrefutable evidence that totally exonerates him in court. So this is a funny joke.
In the old US of A, the accused did not have to prove his innocence.
“..that Trump has irrefutable evidence that totally exonerates him in court.”
That’s impossible.
He’s being charged with a thought crime. Namely, knowing the election was fair, but falsely claiming it was rigged with the intention of sparking an insurrection.
How can they prove his thoughts? How can they prove he ‘knew’ the election was fair? How can they prove he intended to spark an insurrection? How can he prove he did not?
In a real court, they couldn’t prove any of that - but this is a kangaroo court; so proof is not required.
On the other hand, how can he exonerate himself? How can he prove he sincerely believed the election was stolen and that when challenging it, his intentions were noble?
In a real court, he would not need to prove his innocence - but again, this is a kangaroo court.