Special counsel Robert Mueller looking into the income tax return of President Donald trump apparently caused the billionaire to go into a panic mode. As a result, he created on Saturday a Twitter storm by openly pushing the idea of a presidential Pardon, including for himself.

When news of Mueller’s team looking into the finances of Trump and Paul Manafort, the chairman of the Trump campaign, reports surfaced that Trump started to seek legal advice on the possibility of pardoning his campaign staff, family, and himself.

His tweet immediately generated reactions.

Twitter users react

David Frum noted it is the first reference to presidential pardon in Trump’s Twitter timeline. Evan McMullin hinted it could be a sign of desperation when he tweeted, “How quickly we’ve reached the point in which the President’s chosen defense is to lay the groundwork for his own attempted pardon,” Mashable reported.

Joy Reid pointed out that a pardon is an indicator of guilt or obstruction. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer agreed.

When Trump brought up the possibility of using pardon, it only raised more questions and speculations about its use.

Sean Splicer tweeted that the power to pardon becomes fully vested on the president once he reaches six months in the office, which Trump just did. Salon, however, pointed out that while Trump can pardon everyone else, he is unsure if the president can pardon himself.

After the Twitter storm, Trump flew to Norfolk, Virginia, to attend the commissioning of the USS Gerald Ford, an aircraft carrier named after the former Republican president.

Constitutionality of an indictment

Meanwhile, The New York Daily News reported that under the Freedom of Information Act, The New York Times found a 56-page legal memo that suggested a current president can be constitutionally indicted. The memo was part of the independent investigation by Kenneth Starr into President Bill Clinton, who faced an impeachment rap after his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky was exposed.

The memo, written by Ronald Rotunda, a law professor, said it is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president if he is indicted for serious criminal acts that are not part his official duties as president. It is based on the principle that no one is above the law, not even the president of the country.