Here is my understanding.
A judge can rule that if a defendant stays out of trouble for a certain time period (e.g. a year) then his record will be expunged.
Doesn't that mean as a matter of law, it "never happened"?
I don’t think there is background enough in the piece provided to have an informed response. We’ve got a US Senator that thinks she lied, and presumably he has the staff and resources to support that conclusion, and I think in the real world where, had an average citizen cut up her husband, that citizen would not be able to claim, under oath, she had not, and given the “Progressive” penchant to find crimes well after the fact that likely didn’t occur ala Kavanaugh, and studiously ignore actual crimes that did occur ala Hunter Biden’s (and family members), I’m not much inclined to give the DOJ appointee the benefit of the doubt, though I certainly don’t demand that you come to my conclusion.
You appear to want to make a semantic argument based on legal constructs, while I’d prefer to hold a “Progressive” to the standard she’d doubtless hold a Republican were the shoe on the other foot. Not sure if that circle will be squared and indeed don’t understand the goal here. If you feel Cotton got it wrong and hence I should delete the piece, do the research and demonstrate that a case of violent domestic abuse is no longer legally relevant, and then extrapolate that Senator Cotton has no right to expect his question to be answered accurately and honestly, particularly as Democrats would demand just that of a Republican appointee appearing before them. Beyond that I can’t see a reason to belabor the point and certainly hope all posts won’t be held to a similar “yes but” standard.
