JB Pritzker flexes his political muscle: From the Politics Desk

Welcome to From the political officea daily newsletter bringing you the latest reporting and analysis from the NBC News Politics team from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.

In today’s edition, Natasha Korecki explores what last night’s Illinois primary could mean for Gov. JB Pritzker’s political future. Plus, Andrea Mitchell recaps key moments from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s day on Capitol Hill.

Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here.

—Adam Wollner

Illinois results cement JB Pritzker’s ‘powerhouse’ role – and set up White House run

By Natasha Korecki

Officially the Democratic governor. JB Pritzker is seeking a third term in Illinois, landing his own nomination unopposed as he prepares to take on Republican Darren Bailey.

But one of the dominant narratives that emerged last night in Illinois was how all of this would play out in Pritzker’s possible pursuit of the White House.

The lieutenant governor. Juliana StrattonSenate primary victory over well-funded Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthiwhich had outspent Stratton and run more television ads for much longer, only underscored Pritzker’s role as a powerful player in the state. For Pritzker, it was vital that Stratton win the race – and not just because he supported her. While touting a new progressive platform during her Senate campaign, she also ran on the strength of Pritzker-Stratton’s record.

In the months leading up to the primaries, Krishnamoorthi was projected as the front-runner, both in polls and fundraising. Questions swirled about whether Pritzker actually had the strategic organization, influence and popularity to push Stratton across the finish line.

“Last night was a big test for him. If he hadn’t passed, it would have been a speed bump for his likely entry into the presidential race. Now people won’t question his resilience,” said Jim Durkinthe former Republican leader of the Illinois House.

“There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind,” Durkin continued, “that JB Pritzker is the undisputed powerhouse in Illinois.”

Pritzker, a billionaire, has invested at least $5 million in a super PAC supporting Stratton. The group, Illinois Future PAC, spent $14.8 million on ads. Although this is a considerable sum, it is still less than Krishnamoorthi’s expenses.

A person involved in Stratton’s election efforts said it was Pritzker who recognized that the Democratic electorate wanted to hear from future leaders willing to stand up to the president. Donald Trump.

“Democratic primary voters are in a very different place than pundits and people think. We knew that from the beginning, I think JB was one of the first to recognize it,” said the person involved in Stratton’s re-election effort. “Fighting Trump and standing up for your people was going to be the winning message. … That’s what ultimately set Juliana apart. We were sorely outperformed. It wasn’t JB’s money that won him this race.”

Read more from Natasha →

And watch last night’s Democratic House primaries in Illinois here →

Tulsi Gabbard in the hot seat

Analysis by Andrea Mitchell

As cabinet member in charge of all U.S. intelligence, overseeing 17 separate agencies, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard today seemed determined to relinquish power rather than assert it.

Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee for the first time in a year, she shirked her responsibility as chairman. Donald TrumpWashington’s claims that the United States entered the war because of the imminent threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.

The senator Jon OssoffD-Ga., asked: “Did the intelligence community assess that there was an ‘imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?’ Yes or no? Gabbard responded: “Senator, the only person who can determine what constitutes an imminent threat or not is the president. »

In response, Ossoff said: “It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. » He then accused him of having “evaded the question because a frank answer would contradict a statement from the White House.”

The senator Mark WarnerD-Va., vice chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, said she was concerned that in her prepared testimony she wrote that U.S. bombing last June “wiped out” Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and that Tehran had made no effort to rebuild it. But when she read her opening statement at the hearing, she left out that part.

Warner asked, “Was it because the president said there was an imminent two-week threat?” » Gabbard replied: “No, sir, I recognized that the time was long. »

She also refused to reveal whether she had informed the president that if he started war, the likely outcome would be that Iran would strike adjacent Gulf countries and close the Strait of Hormuz – major actions that are currently rattling Iran’s neighbors and causing a surge in oil prices.

Committee members should not have been surprised. On the eve of her appearance, Gabbard gave a glimpse of her position, posting a surprisingly hands-off message on social media placing all responsibility on Trump for the intelligence community’s assessment of the Iranian threat.

Gabbard wrote: “As commander in chief, he is responsible for determining what does and does not constitute an imminent threat… After carefully considering all the information available to him, President Trump has concluded that the Islamist terrorist regime in Iran poses an imminent threat and has taken action based on that conclusion. »

In his video message announcing the start of the war on February 28, Trump said Iran was trying to rebuild its nuclear program, calling the threat “imminent.” After the start of the war, Trump’s special envoy Steve Wittkoff told Fox News that Iran could have enough weapons-grade enriched uranium within a week to ten days. And in his State of the Union days before the war began, Trump warned that Iran was working to build long-range missiles that would reach the United States “soon.”

On the other hand, the director of the CIA John Ratcliffewho reports to Gabbard, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran is years away from developing missiles capable of striking the United States. He said Iran was “gaining experience” in developing intermediate-range missiles that could reach Europe and U.S. troops in the region, but neither he nor Gabbard included Iran among the handful of countries — Russia, China and North Korea — whose missiles could reach the United States. Gabbard said Iran “could” develop technology to begin developing a long-range missile before 2035 — not “soon,” as Trump had said.

Gabbard’s shaky performance at the hearing once again raised questions about her job security. Yesterday, a senior deputy, director of the National Counterterrorism Center Joe Kentresigned in protest against the president’s decision to launch war against Iran. It was the first public schism over the war between Trump’s top aides, although NBC News reported that the vice president J.D. Vance expressed reservations about an attack on Iran.

Read more about the war in Iran:

Rejected by allies, Trump now says US doesn’t need help defending Strait of Hormuz, by Peter Nicholas, Andrea Mitchell, Dan De Luce and Abigail Williams

Republican leaders reject requests for public hearings on Trump’s war on Iran, by Scott Wong, Brennan Leach and Frank Thorp V

US embassies ordered to ‘immediately’ review security as attacks spread, by Abigail Williams and Raquel Coronell Uribe

Follow live updates →

That’s all that’s coming from the politburo for now. Today’s newsletter was written by Adam Wollner and Owen Auston-Babcock.

If you have any comments (like or dislike), please email us at politicsnewsletter@nbcuni.com

And if you’re a fan, share it with everyone. They can register here.