Wrong. He was acquitted in his criminal trial on a technicality: at the last minute, his co-conspirator decided that he wouldn't testify for the prosecution and accepted jail time instead. The House of Representatives voted 413-3 to impeach the b*stard and the senate voted 69-26 to remove him from office. Both bodies had Democrat majorities and only two-thirds of the senate is required to remove him from office.
To this day, he still tries to play the victim card due to his color, so there is a lot of misinformation around. The House could have refused to seat him when he was elected just five years later, but he was swept in on the Clinton coat tails and the jackass party had a super majority similar to now.
What part do I have wrong? I said he was acquitted, you concede this -- I don't care WHY, only going on the reason the House allows/ed his election to stand. He was tried in the Senate by committee, they presented their recommendation to the full Senate for that vote -- he was not tried by the full Senate.
My final comment to you was that these are the REASONS Hastings has been allowed to serve in the House, right or wrong, good or bad.