Impeaching the witness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

IANAL, but I don't think they can introduce child pornography charge in the espionage trial--they severed the two trials, and the ex-CIA coder hasn't yet been convicted of child pornography (it's the later trial), so it doesn't fall under the "Prior Conviction" umbrella.

Fair point. There are other potential prosecutorial benefits.

There's still the court-of-public-opinion element. Such a charge might give allies / witnesses for the defence pause to come forward.

Facing multiple independent counts also increases pressure, costs, and distracts attention for the defendant against any one case. Given the defendant here is representing himself, that may be a major hurdle. (Last sentence here is a stealth edit FYI.)

Whether the CP charges are justified or strategic I really can't say. The practice of digging up additional dirt on defendants in specific instances is a venerable tradition however.

It's a tradition at those 3 letter agencies. They know that some people love wistleblowers and they want to discredit them. Just look at wikipedia pages of those wistleblowers or spies.

How would they know he had state secrets on his computer? And how could they convince a judge they knew he had those secrets without admitting to illegal activities themselves?

he leaked them. he had to have them for him to leak them. if you're asking how they know he was the leak, idk

>he had to have them for him to leak them

A smart leaker would then delete them and destroy any disk they touched.

Even if they knew he leaked them, there's no guarantee he would have them on his machine. Which would be another reason to ‘sprinkle some crack on em,' that way he would still be punished if he was prepared.

> A smart leaker would then delete them and destroy any disk they touched.

And the prosecutors will put them back. Just like police inserts a small package in your backpocket when they arrest you.

>Which would be another reason to ‘sprinkle some crack on em,'

I would assume they would know by doing a standard legal investigation where they get a warrant from the judge and look. I don't know what evidence they gave in the warrant application in this case but usually they have to be more than a blind shot in the dark request.

Thinking they ran an aboveboard investigation of the person they think leaked their surveillance tools is optimistic. Given what I've read about the CIA at that time plotting the assassination of Assange, I don't share your trust.

Makes him look really scummy?