Joe Scarborough asked MSNBC national security adviser Matthew Miller: "When the president of the United States says he had to fire Michael Flynn because he lied to the FBI, what did that immediately say to you?"

"It immediately said he's admitting to obstruction of justice," Miller said. "It's important that he was admitting when he asked Jim Comey to back off of Mike Flynn, it wasn't just because he was a good guy or because he thought Flynn hadn't broken the law. It was because he knew at the time that Flynn had committed a crime. And that's damning enough.

"It's also damning in context. Sally Yates was clear. She didn't tell the White House that Flynn lied to the FBI. She refused that answer for that question. For the president to know at that time that Flynn lied to the FBI, it wasn't because the FBI had told him or the Justice Department. He only could know because Mike Flynn told him, and that gets you into an entire conspiracy to impede and obstruct this investigation, and I think a pretty n dow, he was baffle heg said he wrote that tweet.

"On his face, that appears to be false. He also claimed the president cannot obstruct justice because he's the chief law enforcement officer under the Constitution Article 3 and has every right to express his view on any case," Scarborough said.

"Let's stop there for a second. This sounds like Steven Miller saying the president is not to be questioned. The president's lawyer is saying the president cannot obstruct justice. This sounds like maybe a statement that Erdogan's spokesperson would say, but in America? I mean, what's your reaction to that remarkable claim?

"Look, Joe, they might as well come out and say the president is above the law. That's the takeaway from that statement," Miller said. "That the president can do whatever he wants. He can shut down investigations into himself and his friends and allies. And there's no recourse. I think there is a legal argument over whether the president can be indicted. It's never happened in our history, and there's some debate over it. But there is no question that the president can obstruct justice."

"If he can't be indicted for it, he can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. The nature of the statement is troubling and it's an admission that if you're down to arguing the president can't obstruct justice, you're almost saying he did."