If, hypothetically, Hillary was indicted, what options do Dem Party rules allow? Also Trump/Repubs.

Please let’s not get into the “But she won’t be indicted” argument–it doesn’t matter for the sake of this discussion. Just go with the hypothetical please.

Opening night of the convention, Loretta Lynch indicts Hillary for violating national security (or whatever–pick your own indictable offense–doesn’t matter for these purposes).

There’s a factual answer (somewhere) within the Democratic Party rules about what the party is allowed to do. Dems have super-delegates. Could they coalesce behind someone else? Are there rules governing how they decide?
And let’s play the same game with Republicans: Opening night of the convention, Trump gets indicted for insider trading, shady business deals and harassment. What do the Republican Party rules allow? Given that Repubs don’t have super-delegates, what options are allowed under their rules?

Are we assuming that the presumptive nominee is going to attempt to continue to campaign for president while under indictment?

Um…great question. Let’s pretend they want to continue, but the party doesn’t want them to.

Define “the party” in this scenario. Who exactly is opposed to the candidate continuing the campaign?

Strictly hypothetically, Democratic delegates aren’t legally “bound” to vote for the candidate they’re pledged to. However, since the candidates have approval over who their delegates are, it’s unlikely there would be a mass defection in the short time outlined in the OP. Only about one-sixth of the delegates are uncommitted superdelegates – handy for breaking a deadlocked vote, but not enough to undo a majority a candidate has already won.

The Republican rules are tighter when it comes to “binding” a delegate to a candidate. As a matter of fact, the way I read it, if a pledged delegate tries to vote for a different candidate, the Convention is bound* not *to count it.

Even if they rejected her nomination, whilst unconvicted of a felony she could run as an independent, and there seems to be no disqualification to office in actually being or having been a felon.
Plenty of statesmen in other countries have previously been in chokey before election; and at this moment General Daniel Urresti is simultaneously seeking election as president of Peru whilst at the same time facing 25 years in jail for the 1988 murder of Hugo Bustíos, a journalist.

I have no doubt he blames a vast left-wing conspiracy for slandering his character.

Accusing an opposing political candidate of various illegal activities has unfortunately become standard politics. But actually indicting a candidate during a convention would be taking it up a notch. My assumption would be the indictment would be denounced as a partisan political attack and the candidate’s party would rally around him or her.

If the indictment appears to be based on clear and solid evidence there will be an informal and successful effort to turn the delegates toward another candidate. Even if the rules don’t allow it the rules will be broken because there won’t be enough time to work it out in the courts. The pressure would be enormous for such a candidate to withdraw, and the efforts of either party would get very dirty to have it all done with before the convention was over. Even then it will probably translate to a loss for that party in the election.

If the evidence is not so clear, then the candidate may turn it in their favor as Nemo suggests, and there will also be enormous pressure on the prosecutor who asked for that indictment to justify it.

Little Nemo and TriPolar have it - the timing would be crucial.
A month before the convention, the party is going to maybe think “Damaged Goods” and, come Hell or High Water, will find another nominee.
The day before the convention, the party is going to view it as an outsider attack and will circle the wagons around their Chosen One.

Now: if the indictment were to come from an old Party Statesman who had never said anything about the current race, it could get interesting.

If Loretta Lynch indicts Hillary they will certainly choose a different candidate. The only way she would indict is if the current head of the democrat party (President Obama) gave the ok. It could happen I don’t think he likes her that much.

It might really get interesting if, let’s say a month before the convention, word leaks out that the FBI has formally recommended that Hillary be indicted. Assuming the FBI’s report is on solid ground, this would present the Obama Administration with a Really Big Problem[sup]TM[/sup].

Even if Loretta Lynch didn’t want to indict Hillary, she has to consider the prospect that, if the Republican wins, Lynch herself might end up being investigated for obstruction of justice if it looks like she quashed an indictment for purely political reasons. At this point, it’s possible that the Obama administration might make a conscious choice to throw Hillary under the bus, try to put the best face on it, and draft Joe Biden (or someone) at the convention.

Thanks to everyone for the responses, and special thanks for this one: it was exactly what I was looking for.

Well Obama can pardon her for one thing, but I’m sure that would have a lot of political fallout. Question: can the President pardon her in secret? Go to the FBI with a signed Pardon for Clinton behind closed doors? Are Presidential Pardons a matter of public record?

Well, I generally insist in advance on a general warrant applicable through the entire world for perpetuity absolving me of all crimes and actions I may deem necessary, that also requires full co-operation from all parties on demand, including total transport everywhere and access to all private areas.
And free smokes.

Obama pardons Hillary.
Trump goes to jail.
We live happily thereafter.