U.S. Attorney John Durham, the longtime lawman tapped to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation, is no stranger to high-stakes assignments that might not make him popular in federal law enforcement circles.

But his reputation as a hard-charging and apolitical prosecutor is what colleagues say has made him the go-to investigator for highly sensitive jobs. And looking into alleged misconduct within the FBI and other government agencies — surrounding the most politically explosive investigation since at least the Clinton era — could be his toughest assignment yet.

Those who know him describe him as up to the task.

“He is aggressive, tireless and fair,” former U.S. attorney for Connecticut Deirdre Daly told Fox News in an interview Wednesday. “He has been tapped by the Justice Department under previous Democratic and Republican administrations to conduct sensitive and significant investigations, so he has done this before for both sides of the aisle, so to speak.”

‘What’s critically important here is that he is independent and apolitical.’

— Deirdre Daly, former U.S. attorney for Connecticut

Durham served as counsel to Daly when she was U.S. attorney and deputy U.S. attorney. Durham now holds the U.S. attorney position in Connecticut, but his profile rose this week after it emerged that Attorney General Bill Barr had assigned him to lead the investigation into “all intelligence collection activities” related to the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election, and any misconduct during the early stages of the FBI’s original Russia probe.

US ATTORNEY JOHN DURHAM HAS BEEN REVIEWING ORIGINS OF RUSSIA PROBE ‘FOR WEEKS’: SOURCE

Durham, 68, was appointed by President Trump as U.S. attorney for Connecticut in 2018. But prior to being confirmed to that post, he had been tasked multiple times with investigating alleged misconduct by national security and law enforcement officials. Durham has conducted these sensitive investigations under administrations of both political parties.

“What’s critically important here is that he is independent and apolitical,” Daly said.

One of Durham’s highest-profile cases was in 1999, when former Attorney General Janet Reno, during former President Bill Clinton’s administration, asked him to probe the FBI’s handling of Boston mob boss Whitey Bulger. During that case, Durham helped to convict retired FBI agent John Connolly Jr., who was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison on racketeering charges related to his relationship with Bulger.

Next, in 2008, during former President George W. Bush’s administration, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey assigned Durham to investigate the CIA’s alleged destruction of videotapes in 2005, which showed the torture of terrorism suspects. By 2009, under the Obama administration, then-Attorney General Eric Holder expanded Durham’s task to probe whether the CIA broke any laws in its handling of detainees in custody. Durham ultimately did not recommend charges.

Later, Holder tapped Durham to lead the Justice Department’s investigation into whether it was legal for the CIA to use “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

“He has tremendous experience as both an investigator and a prosecutor,” Daly said. “He is also extremely familiar with the federal criminal justice system’s procedures, policies and practices.”

Durham also led investigations into former Republican Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, who was imprisoned twice for not paying taxes and for accepting improper gifts from individuals conducting business with the state.

BARR ASSIGNS US ATTORNEY IN CONNECTICUT TO LOOK INTO GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE INVOLVING TRUMP CAMPAIGN: SOURCE

Others who know Durham and his work described him as a “hard-charging, bulldog” prosecutor.

According to sources familiar with the latest investigation, Durham has been working on his review of the Russia probe “for weeks.” He is expected to focus on the period before Nov. 7, 2016—including the use of FBI informants as well as alleged improper issuance of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants. Durham was asked to help Barr “ensure that intelligence collection activities by the U.S. Government related to the Trump 2016 Presidential Campaign were lawful and appropriate.”

A source also told Fox News that Barr is working “collaboratively” on Durham’s investigation with FBI Director Chris Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. Durham is also working with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is currently reviewing allegations of FISA abuses and the role of FBI informants during the early stages of the Russia investigation.

Barr first announced his review of the “conduct” at the FBI during the original Russia investigation last month.

“I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted in the summer of 2016,” Barr testified on April 9.

That same day, Fox News learned Barr had assembled a “team” to investigate the origins of the investigation. It is unclear if Durham was part of the original team assembled by Barr last month.

The FBI’s July 2016 counterintelligence investigation was opened by former senior agent Peter Strzok. The FBI, at the time, was led by former Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—both fired during the Trump administration.

It has been widely reported that in the weeks and months leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI used informants or other investigators to make contact with Trump campaign officials. That issue is part of Durham’s probe, as well as Horowitz’s, which is expected to be completed in the coming weeks. At this stage, Durham reportedly does not have subpoena power in connection with this probe.

Barr’s appointment of Durham comes after he testified last month that he believed “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016, and “the question is whether it was adequately predicated.”

But FBI Director Chris Wray, during a separate congressional hearing, broke with Barr’s assessment.

“That’s not the term I would use,” Wray told lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee when asked if FBI agents engage in “spying” when they follow FBI policies and procedures.

“Lots of people have different colloquial phrases,” he continued. “I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity, and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes, and to me the key question is making sure that it’s done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities.”

Trump ally and unofficial legal adviser Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, told Fox News that Barr made a “perfect pick” in appointing Durham.

“He is a superb career prosecutor who has accomplished remarkable things in highly-complex, sensitive cases, which is what this entire scandal is about,” diGenova, who has called for an investigation into the investigators for months, said Wednesday. “Barr has also proven his judgment is excellent and, more importantly, that he is serious by choosing Durham—serious about getting to the bottom of this national disgrace.”

When asked whether he and others in the president’s camp would accept the outcome of Durham’s probe no matter how it resolves, diGenova said yes.

He added: “If there are crimes, he will find them. And whatever he does, I certainly am willing to accept.”

 Fox News’ Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

Bill Barr did not mince words about his brawl with House Democrats when he ran into Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday on the sidelines of a Capitol Hill event.

According to a source close to the attorney general, Barr approached her in a holding tent after the National Peace Officers Memorial Service and asked whether she had brought her handcuffs.

CALLS TO JAIL ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR GROW FROM DEMOCRATIC RANKS

The quip was a reference to the calls from some rank-and-file Democrats for Barr himself to be arrested, amid the fight over access to Russia probe documents.

The House Judiciary Committee voted last week to hold Barr in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted Russia report and underlying materials, as President Trump asserted executive privilege to protect those same files from release.

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., was one of the first calling for the House to pursue “inherent contempt,” which would have Barr arrested by the sergeant at arms—a tactic reportedly not employed since the 1930s.

Several other lawmakers, including Reps. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., have warmed to the idea.

“We know how to arrest people around here,” Raskin told Politico. “And if we need to arrest someone, the [House] sergeant-at-arms will know how to do it. I’m not afraid of that.”

He added: “If they can arrest my constituents, we can arrest someone else who’s disobeying the law.”

But despite rank-and-file Democrats calling for the drastic measure, Pelosi has seemed cool to the idea. Last week, she pushed back when asked about the potential step.

“We do have a jail in the basement of the Capitol, but if we were arresting all of the people in the administration, we would have an overcrowded jail situation,” Pelosi said. “And I’m not for that.”

Inherent contempt is one of three contempt options available, along with criminal contempt (under which an individual is charged with a crime) and civil judgment (leading to a civil court process).

IMPRISONING BILL BARR IS LEFT’S NEW RALLYING CRY: ‘HAVE HIM LOCKED UP’

But while Pelosi has not outright called for his arrest, the speaker has claimed that the attorney general lied to Congress.

“He lied to Congress. And if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime,” Pelosi told reporters last month. “Nobody is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not the attorney general.

Pelosi’s public comments came after she, according to Politico, told Rep. Charlie Crist, D-Fla., during a private caucus meeting Thursday: “We saw [Barr] commit a crime when he answered your question.”

She was referring to an April 9 hearing, where Crist had asked whether Barr knew what prompted reports that prosecutors on the special counsel team were frustrated with his initial summary. Barr said he did not.

But earlier this month, The Washington Post first reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March. Mueller pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office. However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.

Pelosi was also asked if Barr should go to jail.

“There is a process involved here and as I said, I’ll say it again, the committee will have to come to how we will proceed,” Pelosi said.

“Speaker Pelosi’s baseless attack on the Attorney General is reckless, irresponsible and false,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in response.

Democrats have blasted Barr for weeks over his handling of the special counsel’s report. Barr initially released a four-page summary of Mueller’s findings, announcing in late March that the special counsel found no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election. Mueller did not come to a conclusion on whether the president obstructed justice, but Barr said the evidence was not sufficient to charge the president with such an offense.

While Democrats have criticized Barr for that swift conclusion, they have sought the completely unredacted version of the report in a bid to learn more about what information Mueller gathered regarding the obstruction probe. The report released publicly last month had redactions covering sensitive sources and methods, grand jury material, and other areas to protect the reputational interests of “peripheral players” in the investigation.

Barr and his deputies, however, have countered that they’ve made available to select members a version with minimal redactions — and Democrats have declined to look at it.