It is a stunning defeat for Special Prosecutor John Durham, his client, the United States, and the millions of Americans who believe that President Trump was not the perpetrator of collusion with Russia but a victim of it.

After just more than six hours of deliberation, a jury in federal court acquitted lawyer Michael Sussman of one count of lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

While the verdict will be hailed by Democrats and likely be met with sighs of relief in Secretary of State Clinton’s camarilla, it is unlikely to satisfy those who will see in the failure to convict evasion of a reckoning for Mrs. Clinton and her allies. 

The charge arose from a meeting between Mr. Sussman and the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker. Mr. Sussman supplied Mr. Baker with data in the form of thumb drives and a white paper, alleging cooperation via a secret server between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank with ties to President Putin.

That allegation of cooperation ultimately turned out to be baseless. The FBI’s general counsel, who took the meeting with Mr. Sussman, testified that there was “nothing there” and no substance to the accusation of a “surreptitious communications channel.”    

A jury of Mr. Sussman’s peers in more than one respect — 76 percent of District of Columbia voters in 2016 registered as Democrats — rejected prosecutors’ argument to convict Mr. Sussman for failing to disclose to the FBI that he was representing the Clinton campaign during that conference. 

In a text message that Mr. Sussman sent to Mr. Baker, the accused claimed, “I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau.” Summoning billing records, prosecutors argued that Mr. Sussman billed the Clinton campaign for opposition work before and after his September 19, 2016, meeting with Mr. Baker.   

After the failure to convict, it is not just Mr. Sussman who will walk free. The effort to hold Secretary Clinton herself to account for an elaborate “dirty trick” suffered a bodyblow, at least in the legal arena. 

Verdict notwithstanding, the weeklong trial surfaced plenty of grist for the mill of those focused on the events of the summer and fall of 2016. 

Testimony disclosed that the Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook, the campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the policy director, Jake Sullivan — President Biden’s national security adviser — and others were aware of the opposition research Fusion GPS was conducting against President Trump. 

Fusion GPS was behind the now widely discredited “Steele Dossier” and its accusations of Russian blackmail of Mr. Trump. The dossier was funded through the law firm Perkins Coie, where Mr. Sussman served as a partner.   

Mr. Mook, the campaign manager, confirmed during cross-examination that Mrs. Clinton herself was aware of efforts to peddle the alleged connection between Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization to at least one reporter, though Mr. Mook denied that there was an effort to do the same to the FBI. 

Even before the verdict was delivered, many were looking at this case with gimlet eyes. More than 90 percent of the Washington, D.C., residents who voted in the 2020 election cast a ballot for President Biden. One donor to Mrs. Clinton was kept on the jury by Judge Christopher Cooper after promising to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” 

The jury box also featured a donor to Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and another affiliated with the “defund the police” movement. The judge barred prosecutors from describing the relationship between Mr. Sussman and the Clinton campaign as a “joint venture,” curbing prosecutorial argument. 

At the beginning of the trial, Judge Christopher Cooper told the jury: “Whatever your political views might be, they cannot be brought to your decisions.” Whether that dictate was more honored in the breach or observance is likely to be hotly contested. 

Mr. Durham’s office will stage a second trial later this year, against a Russian national likewise accused of making false statements to the FBI in connection with the Clinton campaign. 

Unless the outcome differs, prosecutors might very well agree with what the jury forewoman told reporters outside the courthouse on Tuesday: “I think we could have spent our time more wisely.”