As the controversy surrounding Donald Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey intensifies, one of the key questions is whether the president obstructed justice by firing the person overseeing the investigation into the Russia scandal. Trump’s allies have gone to great lengths this week to argue that the firing and the investigation have nothing to do with one another.The president, however, has now admitted that those defenses are wrong. In an interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt yesterday, Trump admitted he was motivated by concerns about the Russia scandal when he decided to oust Comey from his FBI post.

About the same time as the interview, Trump’s spokesperson also told reporters that by firing Comey, the White House has “taken steps” to end the investigation into the Russia scandal.Democrats don’t need to make the case that Trump obstructed justice; Trump and his team are doing it for them.Perhaps you’ve seen a crime drama in which the smart detective sits down with a suspect and tries to cleverly get the accused to confess to the crime. In this case, however, the task is made far easier by the fact that the president has dropped the pretense of innocence. Trump is effectively admitting he’s guilty.And as Rachel noted on the show last night, the only appropriate remedy for a president who’s obstructed justice is impeachment.Trump certainly has his share of effective opponents, but yesterday was the latest reminder that he remains his own worst enemy. When courts considered the president’s Muslim ban, jurists simply pointed to Trump’s own remarks when striking down the policy. When a judge ruled against his executive order on so-called “sanctuary cities,” the same thing happened : a court relied on Trump’s rhetoric when ruling against the directive.Perhaps someone needs to remind Trump that he has the right to remain silent, and anything he says may be used against him in a court of law (or in a legislative chamber weighing impeachment charges).