I definitely feel like Clement got the better of all this. He got to use the strident and over-stated ramblings of an amicus that sounds potentially unbalanced to write a letter reaffirming his view of the Commissioner's ruling. His letter is pretty well done. You normally get slammed for trying to reiterate your arguments after oral arguments, but when you can play the indignant card -- someone questioned my ethics -- you are kind of free to do whatever the fuck you want. Blecker is a shrill hack, and while it gives some red meat to those of us who know the true facts and are infuriated the rest of the world doesn't, he's doing more harm than good.
You may be 100% correct on this, but I had a different visceral take just reading the letters before this thread.
I didn't read the amicus, so I don't know how well it tracks Goldberg's letter, but Goldberg's letter is now public.
Clement's letter in response to the amicus seems a bit twisty and evasive (and overly reliant on process.) If I were a judge reading it for the first time, I wouldn't be entirely clear on what the alleged misstatements were and why those allegations were wrong. I'd certainly have a clerk compare the Goldberg letter, Clement's response, the amicus, and the record, just to see. (Clement's has a good rep, and we all occasionally make de miinimis misstatements, but you just can't plead false facts and then fail to correct them after they're brought to your attention.) What I'd do would depend on what I found.
FWIW, I think the ideal response from Clement would be: a) this isn't appropriate in terms of process, but the accusations are serious, b) because they're serious I want to reassure the court that this is what I filed/said - and it's truthful because. . ., c) beg the court not to be distracted by this, but assure them that you're available for a hearing should the judges have the slightest concern.
I will say that my thinking about this is somewhat influenced by bar complaints. Basically, no matter how outlandish, when your integrity is questioned, you don't want to get snippy. Instead, you want to stand there with a spotlight and shout, "Look, come see, there's no problem here." So, I think there was a similar high road to take here, and I'm not quite sure Clement found it. Nor do I think the court will very much be swayed at all by any of Clement's reiterated arguments or justifications - but coming out of this kind of accusation as a truth-teller with high integrity never hurts your side. Coming out of it a little weaselly could hurt.