Walsh's book purports to reveal the "truth" about Lincoln's defense of William "Duff" Armstrong, in which he famously used an almanac to discredit a key prosecution witness' testimony. The blurb suggests that Lincoln suppressed evidence, and may have tampered with a witness. It's a lot of nonsense, clearly written by someone who has no concept of trial work. It is not "suppressing evidence" or "witness tampering" to present only that which assists your client. It's good lawyering. It's doing your job.

Furthermore, the author shows little understanding of the law. Walsh states, for instance, that if the convicted co-defendant, Norris, were cleared of guilt, then the charges against Armstrong, who was acquitted, might be revived. Has the man never heard of "double jeopardy"? Logic is lacking, as well. On no actual evidence whatsoever, Walsh baldly states that William Herndon's involvement in seeking clemency for Norris "remove[s] any least hesitation as to President Lincoln's involvement". No, it doesn't. It merely shows that those who hired Herndon sensibly thought that hiring the President's law partner would be a good political move. It does not prove, by any stretch of the imagination, any direct or indirect involvement on Lincoln's part.