Yes, you're correct. I believe the woman who shared photos of her bruises in an article online accusing Clevinger, who had no clear benefit in coming forward and who probably cost herself money in the process, is credible. I find it baffling that MLB would have failed to interview her promptly and find it completely improper that they should have had the incident reported to them while he was still on the Padres and still had to talk to her again in February. As this might have come down to a he-said, she-said situation in terms of her statements, taking those statements so far afterwards is one step above trying to cover it up since memory doesn't work that way, it gets worse over time, including for traumatic events. Whoever decided on a suspension or not would have had to know that it would be appealed to an independent arbiter, and these cases are complicated enough when everything is investigated correctly, and inconsistent statements made 6 months afterwards would be an easy thing to argue against.
So yes, I've made up my mind. You also have made up your mind that the accuser was lying and that those bruises came from something else or from someone else, despite knowing less than those assigned - you've indicated this by saying repeatedly that he was "cleared" without knowing that. But it only looks bad when I believe the person who published pictures of their bruises, not when you decide you don't believe them because...well, whatever, you won't say where you think those photos came from.
And to top it off, we then have things that should not have happened at all, him dragging the team into this. No one ever should have thought a guy publicly accused of domestic abuse should be playing the song "Gold Digger" as their walkout song, and they made him stop right away when they were called out on it. They should absolutely have said "everyone stay away from this person as one of our teammates had an issue with them" and yet somehow this wound up involving one of the other team rookies. These were things that should not have happened.
So I don't know the whole story, but I am absolutely allowed to believe the accuser from what was presented even if it didn't rise to the standard of a suspension, and I am absolutely allowed to wonder why on Earth they were still interviewing this person in February as that alone casts doubt on the quality of the MLB investigation.
And given all this, it's totally unsurprising that people were insisting he was one of the most likely guys to be traded at the deadline outside of his personal issues and in the end no one wanted him, and it seemed obvious that he would be claimed at the waiver wire deadline, if anyone wanted him.
And yes, if they bring him back, the only reason you won't hear about this all next year is that it will be the last straw for a lot of white sox fans.