The report goes on to detail a concerted plan by Bank of America (a threatened target of WikiLeaks), its attorneys, and three “data intelligence firms,” to discredit WikiLeaks through a campaign of “disinformation” (including purposefully “leaking” false information through WikiLeaks, “and then call[ing] out the error”) and by applying pressure to prominent liberal supporters of the organization, including Glenn Greenwald, who’s mentioned by name. With regard to the latter point, a portion of the leaked “proposal” specifically states of Mr. Greenwald: “It is this [i.e., his] level of support that needs to be disrupted”; and further states that as to WikiLeaks’ liberal supporters, including Mr. Greenwald:

These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals.

It’s not exactly clear how Bank of America’s lackeys proposed to “disrupt” Mr. Greenwald’s “support” of WikiLeaks, or to “push” Mr. Greenwald and others, but the Tech Herald notes that an earlier draft used the word “attacked” rather than “disrupted.” What is clear is that the proposal put together by Bank of America’s hired consultants urged the bank to do or say things that would threaten the careers of Mr. Greenwald and other liberals who support WikiLeaks – what else could they have meant by trying to force Greenwald and others to “choose professional preservation over cause”? So whatever the methods, their purpose was to intimidate and silence Mr. Greenwald and others who’d voiced support for WikiLeaks in the past, and that, of course, is entirely beyond the pale.