I don’t think she understands what she is saying, but I think she is correct by accident. You described her argument as a claim that the Obama letter put an unfair burden on the accused. Because I believe that the Obama letter makes universities a de facto agent of the state (an argument that she didn’t even vaguely attempt to make), I believe that it is unconstitutional to put any burdens on the accused that don’t align strictly with due process and civil rights regarding the justice system.
So, yeah, I can defend her specific argument, even while believing that all the supporting evidence she personally gave for that argument is hogwash. Like I said, I think she is correct by accident, not because she is in any way informed. This is also the reason that I think pretty much all actions she takes regarding this decision will range from barely reasonable to completely awful.