I’m still puzzled. What in that supports your paraphrase?

This is clearly a political speech. It’s trying to make the case that the system is broken for all concerned. For maximum sympathy it starts with the claim that it fails even assault survivors, trying to highlight that case with anecdotes.

I would expect the anecdote-based point about failing survivors is the most dubious factually. But that’s the way it goes in politics. If true, the anecdote does illustrate the rickety nature of the improvised ad hoc judicial systems that have resulted.

But actually I notice your paraphrases don’t even acknowledge that she makes this claim about failing survivors at all.

The argument about rights of the accused that I focused on is there in her speech.

The suggesting about it leading to a mess of lawsuits for colleges (so failing them as well) is also in there and not absurd.

So still in the dark how you are the one looking at what she actually said.