Finally. Found this, a sober version of the Trump case. Basically it was a weak case with dubious motivation ... but Trump's defense was ludicrously bad and resulted in his conviction. So it's not the slam dunk for justice and the rule of law the Dems are claiming, nor is it the total kangaroo court sham Trump is claiming. Somewhere in the muddy middle:
The best — and worst — criticisms of Trump’s conviction
Was Trump wrongly convicted? The debate, explained. [vox.com]
Facts: he used money earmarked for something else by law to try to hush up his moral lapse. Period.
His defense was "ludicrously bad" because he/his lawyers had nothing to say, the Facts spoke for themselves.
Wrongly convicted? He broke the law and he got caught. Trump arranged to have hush money sent to a woman he claims he had no involvement with. Is that strange? It is only the beginning in this case.
No, he wasn't wrongfully convicted. Did you even read the article?