Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 October 29

= October 29 =

Elections
What would happen if BOTH the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect get arrested on felony charges after being elected but before taking office? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're talking about the U.S. here...then they would be arrested. Being arrested doesn't make the President not the President anymore. Neither does being convicted of a crime. The President and Vice-President can only be involuntarily removed from office by impeachment and removal from office by Congress. Now, they might choose to resign, and if they didn't it's likely Congress would begin impeachment proceedings, but that's speculation. If they did both resign before being inaugurated, it looks like the Speaker of the House (or, if they're unable, whoever's next in the line of succession) would become President: see President-elect of the United States. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But wait a minute -- if they're both indicted (much less convicted) for a felony prior to taking office, doesn't that revoke their eligibility to serve? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the President or Vice-President cannot have criminal charges laid against them. Such a requirement—where a charge, not even a conviction, would disqualify someone from the Presidency—would likely be completely unworkable; an unscrupulous prosecutor could just file some made-up charges if they don't like the President-elect, and voila, they've just executed a presidential coup. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There's also the technicality of what "president-elect" means. If such arrests came after the November election but before the electors meet, the electors could substitute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Bugs means "The electors could vote for someone else", not "the electors themselves could replace the candidates". --76.71.5.45 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the electors could substitute other candidates for the ones no longer available. This general topic was discussed within the last few months. In that case it was about a candidate dying between the public election and the electoral college meetings. Essentially the same problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It might also be useful to remember than an indictment has no bearing on the outcome of the trial. People are frequently cleared of all charges, and considering the timing of the hypothesis -- between the election and the inauguration -- one might fairly assume that the charges were (a) politically motivated, and therefore (b) less than robust. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)