Over the weekend U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Grand Rapids) dominated headlines after tweeting that President Donald Trump's actions as outlined in the Mueller report demonstrated "impeachable conduct."
The five-term congressman shared his conclusions about the report on Twitter. They were retweeted by tens of thousands of people and met with praise and criticism. Amash is the first Republican member of Congress to begin discussions of impeachment.
Trump fired back at Amash, also using Twitter as a platform for his comments. The president called him a "lightweight" and a "loser" on Sunday.
Following Amash's tweets, two West Michigan residents said they are challenging the sitting congressman in the 2020 election.
Amash represents Michigan's 3rd district, which covers Grand Rapids and parts of Ionia, Barry and Calhoun counties.
State Representative Jim Lower, a Republican from Greenville, announced Monday that he will be running against Amash for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020.
Lower hinted to a possible run on Twitter Saturday in response to Amash's thread. His campaign said they planned to announce the run around July 4, but moved up the timetable because of Amash's tweets.
“It is never easy to defeat an incumbent, but we are going to do it," Lower said in a press release.
Tom Norton, a Republican from Sand Lake, is also challenging Amash. He announced his campaign in late April on Facebook, but reached out to 13 ON YOUR SIDE on Sunday.
Norton posted his response on Facebook, saying he is running to remove Amash from office and "be a representative of the people not the politicians."
As a Congressman during Trump's presidency Amash has made headlines for bucking party trends. Both Lower and Norton are positioning themselves as Republicans who would vote with Trump and party platforms.
Monday afternoon, Amash doubled down on his impeachment argument. The congressman, again, took to Twitter to explain and justify his conclusions about the Mueller report.
Amash directed his tweets to "people who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation." He went on the say their argument is based on "falsehoods," and explained his understanding of what obstruction of justice is.
►Make it easy to keep up to date with more stories like this. Download the 13 ON YOUR SIDE app now.