If you can discern the argument in this Atlantic essay, you’ve done better than I can. Is it that the presumption of innocence sometimes causes pain to victims of rape and should therefore be abandoned? That courtrooms don’t always yield perfect justice and therefore. . . what? Megan Garber writes:

Due process would seem innocuous and inarguable—a constitutional affordance, a claim of equality, a testament to the rule of law. Used as a talking point, though, it often does something else: It argues that some claims to justice are worthier than others. It makes a case for the status quo. That is why you see it invoked by Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer; that is also why you might have seen it invoked over the past few months, in the service of arguments that impeachment had been unfairly dismissive of Donald Trump’s interests. This is not due process used as a tool of justice. This is due process wielded as a weapon.

Letting people make demands for fair treatment will, it is true, mean that they can make demands that Garber considers unjustified or cynical. That is all she has really said here. This is language used to obscure, not to clarify.