He's about to go on criminal trial on Monday.

How does that play into the devolution claim?

EDIT I don't think folks are getting my reference.

The DOJ has a long standing policy since 1973 that the President cannot be indicted.

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Basically the Office of Legal Counsel which is the how like the law firm of the DOJ looked into this question during Watergate and issued this legal opinion.

For these reasons we believe that the Constitution requires recognition of a presidential immunity from indictment and criminal prosecution while the President is in office.

So this seems like a contradiction in the Devolution theory. Since Trump has been indicted and facing both state and federal indictments, how can he still be the sitting president?

Some folks say well he is not the President, but the Commander in Chief. However, the Constitution says the President is the Commander in Chief.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

This plus things like Biden pulling us out of Aghanistan seems like a high hurdle to the Devolution theory for me

He's about to go on criminal trial on Monday.

How does that play into the devolution claim?