Two days after GOP Rep. Justin Amash claimed that President Trump committed impeachable offenses, a pro-Trump Michigan state representative has stepped forward to challenge him in the primary election.

State Rep. Jim Lower​, calling himself a ​”​pro-Trump, pro-life, pro-jobs, pro-Second Amendment, pro-family values Republican​,” announced on Monday his intention to run against Amash in 2020. ​

“Congressman Justin Amash tweets yesterday calling for President Trump’s impeachment show how out of touch he is with the truth and how out of touch he is with people he represents,” Lower said​, according to the Detroit Free Press​. “He must be replaced and I am going to do it.”

​Lower had planned to announce that he would challenge Amash around July 4 but moved it up after the fifth-term congressman said that Trump met the “threshold of impeachment” in a series​ Twitter postings on Saturday.

​Amash, first elected in 2010, said he concluded after reading Robert Mueller’s report that Trump “engaged in impeachable conduct” and that Attorney General William Barr “deliberately misrepresented” the special counsel’s findings.

Trump called Amash a “total lightweight” and a “loser” who opposes him to gain notoriety.

The Michigan Republican didn’t respond to the challenge by Lower, but did double down on his thoughts about impeaching Trump, posting a series of 10 tweets to argue his case.

Among other issues, he addressed the contention that Trump couldn’t have obstructed justice because he is free to use any means to end what he believes to be a “frivolous investigation.”

“In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes,” Amash wrote.

He also responded to Trump’s defenders who claim that obstruction of justice requires the presence of an underlying crime.

“In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution,” he said.

“If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense,” Amash continued in another tweet.