𝐉𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫 on Nostr: Not the main issue here, but he's saying that now, not having won the Nobel prize, he ...

Not the main issue here, but he's saying that now, not having won the Nobel prize, he can "think about what is good and proper for the USA." That compels the conclusion that before the prize was awarded, he was prioritizing winning it over the best interests of his country; that is, that he did things that were NOT good and proper for the USA for the purpose of influencing the Nobel committee. If he had acted contrary to the interests of his country in exchange for a personal reward, that would be bribery, which is certainly an impeachable offense; is it any less impeachable if he did it in hopes of receiving a reward that he ended up not receiving?