Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who think well of him. I don't happen to be one of them, but not everyone views his actions through the same lens. Also his de-escalation of tensions with the Soviet Union overshadows a lot of the other stuff for many people. He was a horrifically adept player of the realpolitik game, and for some people the awful acts that came with that game are just the necessary costs.
You are very adverse to the “war criminal” label. I guess that’s too disrespectful for your tastes. (We must, above all else, respect the “players” of the “politicking”.)
Reading comments by students of polsci (amateur or pro) either makes me fall asleep—oh the regergutation of supposed “ideals” and bromides and empty platitudes—or makes me shake my head in disgust. They must have ascended to a Platonic Plane where they are unperturbed by the implications of what they say.
Separate from my other response, he is probably not a villain in his own mind. So, while Theranos wouldn't even register against some of his other acts from the opinions of many, it very well might in his own mind.
I also should have been clearer in my original comment and provided another aspect of the influence people at that level have: It can often be passive. It may not take a phone call to for the influence to manifest itself: The mere involvement of prominent people like this in a scandal could be all it takes to spark significant interest by the DOJ and prosecutors to investigate, it doesn't necessarily have to be a back-channel request from the person to look into an issue. On a much smaller scale that has happened where I work before.
I doubt the world's most notorious unprosecuted war criminal would have his reputation tarnished by advising a fraudster.