1.      Sources to CNN: “Hillary Likely Won't Face Prosecution”; 2.More Information on Hillary Clinton’s Servers 

1.      Sources to CNN: “Hillary Likely Won't Face Prosecution”

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton likely will not be prosecuted on charges related to her use of a private email server, unnamed sources told CNN over the weekend, and following Saturday's FBI interrogation, the investigation into the scandal is 1. coming to an end, a former Department of Justice spokesman said Monday. 

"I think this was really the last step in the FBI's investigation, typically in a long investigation like this," former DOJ spokesman Matt Miller, who endorses Clinton's campaign, told CNN's Alisyn Camerota Monday, noting that the key person in an investigation is typically interviewed last.  

Over the weekend, Edward Mejia Davis, CNN's senior producer, posted on Twitter that there would likely be "no charges" against ClintonSources familiar with the investigation told CNN that within the next two weeks or so, there will likely be an announcement that no charges will be brought against Clinton, as long as there is no evidence coming from her interview on Saturday with the FBI. 

CNN reported previously that there would likely be no charges as investigators had not found enough evidence to warrant charges, according to law enforcement officials. 

On Saturday, a Democrat close to Clinton said the FBI will likely announce its decision before the Democratic National Convention later this month. 

2.More Information on Hillary Clinton’s Servers 

The Hillary Clinton campaign staff is undertaking a massive campaign to shape the media perception of the alleged Hillary Clinton security violations.

The most current example is Brian Fallon, Clinton’s national press secretary, interview with NBC News. In that interview he stated the following points:

1.“We have received no indication from any government agency to support these claims, 

2. nor are they reflected in the range of charges that Guccifer already faces and that prompted his extradition in the first place,” 

Fallon said. 3. “And it has been reported that security logs from Secretary Clinton’s email server do not show any evidence of foreign hacking.”

The Fallon statements are an example of "Clinton speak". This means that while the statement is "technically correct" it is misleading. The following points apply:

1. No government agency would communicate to Hillary Clinton and/or to her campaign and/or personal staff any information at all concerning these claims and/or the investigation of these claims. Thus, Fallon is dating an obvious truth: the campaign has received no indication from any government agency… Of anything supporting and/or denying this allegation by a hacker who successfully hacked into Hillary Clinton's secret emails.

2. additional charges might be levied against Marcel Lehel Lazar As Brian Fallon fully understands at this stage of the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her staff any charges against Lazar would jeopardize the investigation.

3. Current evidence shows that sources in Russia and China have hacked into the servers. It is also believed that the Iranians did also hack into the servers. In addition to the classified information and the disclosure of sources and methods, the unclassified materials gave a clear picture of actions and intentions. So that damage is not only the classified material but also giving adversaries advanced tips as to US positions in US fallback positions.

General David Petraeus made his classified notebooks to his biographer,Paula Broadwell. Ms.Broadwell held the required security clearances for this information… However she did not have the need to know. She did not utilize any of this information in her writings nor did she transmit this information to any third party either directly or indirectly.

Thus, Mrs. Clinton by making this information available to her staff who did not have a need to know and in many cases did not have the required level of clearance for the information is much more guilty of a serious transgression than was General Petraeus .