“He was appointed by Jimmah Cahtah, and the democrat controlled Senate did not bar him from future federal office.”
While everything you said about Hastings as a person is correct, it simply is not true that the RAT Senate could have barred Hastings from future service in Congress. Article I, section 3, clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the judgment in cases of impeachment shall extend no further than removal from office and disqualification for future service in an “Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States,” which refers to high offices in the federal Executive Branch and Judicial Branch but specifically excludes membership in the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate. The Framers were very sensitive to the abuses that the British had carried out against Member of Parliament John Wilkes, including expulsion from Parliament for political disagreements, and ensured that no one could be prohibited from being elected to, and serving in, Congress even if previously impeached and convicted (something that Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution limited to the President, VP and “all civil Officers of the United States”) or previously expelled from Congress. That members of Congress are excluded from the definition of holders of an “Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States” is evidenced by the fact that Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides, with respect to presidential Electors (i.e., members of the Electoral College) “but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” So the Senate, when it convicted Hastings in his impeachment trial, could not have barred Hastings from later serving in the U.S. House of Representatives; to keep Hastings out, the House would have to expel him (by a 2/3 vote) and, if his constituents nevertheless elected him again, expel him once again (and rinse and repeat).