I am still not seeing how a negative rating or a flag is justified for some one speaking positively of anyone regardless of how fraudulent you think they might be. This is straight up guilt via association, the kind of legal standards they had in The Soviet Union.
He was promoting, vouching for, and defending a lying scammer. I suspect hey may have been paid or had other financial incentives to promote the deceptive service. Is it really that difficult to conceive why he was tagged and flagged?