As an appellate lawyer, I have seen this before - lots of facts to obscure the absence of legal analysis, or supportive precedent. One must remember that the "statement of facts" is not a statement of facts at all, since there has been no trial, and no factfinding. This gives a totally wrong impression of the judicial process. Thus, as a "book" it has little value. Better to wait until true analysis comes out in book form, with exerpts from what could become known as the "infamous" Starr Report.