You Vote: Has the Durham probe been a bust?
Prosecutions have produced evidence of FBI misconduct but no convictions.
A jury on Tuesday found Igor Danchenko, a primary source of the discredited Steele dossier, not guilty on all counts of allegedly lying to the FBI about his relationship with the sources for the Trump opposition research documents.
The trial was part of Special Counsel John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion probe.
In Durham's only other trial in the investigation, former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann was found not guilty in June of making false statements to the FBI regarding the collusion probe.
The next step may be to await Durham's final report, assuming he's finished with prosecutions.
As Just the News Editor in Chief John Solomon recounted in a new story on both verdicts, the trials revealed a mountain of evidence of the FBI's stunning failures and misconduct in the politically tinged Trump-Russia probe.
However, with no convictions to show for it, Durham's ongoing investigation came under fire.
"The Durham probe has been a giant bust," read a CNN headline.
"Why John Durham's investigation has failed so spectacularly," added MSNBC.
Meanwhile, a Washington Post analysis said the "three-year effort to undercut the Russia probe comes up dry."
Do you agree with these headlines? Or has the probe been worthwhile by exposing FBI misconduct, even if it hasn't produced any guilty verdicts? Here's your chance to weigh in: