The "preponderance of the evidence" on US Attorney firings

Here's a broader list of allegations in the US Attorney scandal outside the better known allegations involving (Lam (San Diego,) Iglesias (New Mexico,) Cummins (Arkansas,) and McKay (Washington,)):

(WaPo) Prosecutor Says Bush Appointees Interfered With Tobacco Case ("He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony.") (I know this isn't US Attorneys, but it hits the pattern.)

(LVSun) Did Gov. Jim Gibbons, while serving in the U.S. Congress, influence the Justice Department - directly or through intermediaries - to intervene in a civil dispute on behalf of his friend Warren Trepp?

(Arizona Republic) Serious questions about the firing of the Arizona US Attorney who was fired precipitously and was investigating Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Az.) and a dodgy land deal.

(TPM) Questions about Abramoff and the NH phone jamming case.

(This is by no means a complete list, but I thought a "preponderance of evidence" post might be useful.)

I keep thinking back to this Sampson (fired) to Miers (fired) email:

"We’re a go for the US Atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledge that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."

Heads up. Here comes the pressure.

(And, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo tries to push this story over the top. Because of his influence on the media in this story, it is definitely worth a read.)

Later: The only US Attorney fired for actual incompetence, they really didn't want to fire and did so only grudgingly.