I disagree. When the AG points out that an executive action is morally or legally dubious, it reflects more on the actions of the president than on the AG.

In this case, government cannot be compared to a business, where a subordinate publicly questioning a superior's decision is indicative of unruly management, leaving the superior in a position where he/she needs to reassure the public that he's/she's in charge. Government doesn't work like that.

Nobody "needs" to get fired. From where would the need come?