Technically yes, he should have had better oversight of the accountant.
Better oversight of the accountant doing what? Do you believe that the accountant improperly recorded the payment transactions as legal expenses?
And tbh I don't have any problems believing Trump knew exactly what was happening.
But, the question is do you understand what was really happening?
This in not an attack on anyone, but when I read and listen to people (including the inconspicuously anti-Trump activist media) talk about this trial I quickly realize no one really has any understanding of what is actually happening. The overwhelming majority do not know and/or understand the supposed crimes nor do they know and/or understand the law that governs said supposed crimes.
What Trump was convicted of was falsifying business records with the intention to defraud and commit another crime and conceal the crime. In this case, the other crime is campaign finance.
The NY DA Alvin Bragg said the falsification of business records was that Trump intentionally misreported his payments to his attorney, Michael Cohen, as legal expenses. Bragg said that these payments, which were payments for Stormy Daniels as part of a Non-Disclosure Agreement--NDAs, by the way, are entirely legal--were to defraud the American public for election purposes, therefore violating election campaign finance laws.
So, there are two questions: 1) were the payments actually intentionally misreported, i.e. were they actually not legal expenses?
The 2nd question is much more legally wonky that most Americans and even more Euros don't get. The campaign finance law is a
federal law. The NY DA is a
local prosecutor. charged with prosecuting the laws of New York County--not federal laws. So, the second question isn't the intuitive question of "did Trump actually intend to defraud for political purposes by making the payments", but...
2) Does Alvin Bragg as NY County District Attorney have the jurisdiction to prosecute federal election laws?
IMO, if this ever reaches the federal courts, which would be the USSC, the court would nullify Trump's conviction simply on the grounds of Bragg usurping federal jurisdiction. The USSC might not even entertain the merits of whether the payments were misreported or whether Trump actually violated federal campaign finance law (which, by the way, the Department of Justice, earlier said he didn't).
And, this would be the best ruling for the country, because if it is allowed to stand, chaos will ensue. You'd see local DAs all over the US bringing these types of cases to trial to effect elections. It would create a dispersion of federal election law. It would be like trying to herd a 100,000 kittens. Our elections would be utterly corrupted and unsecure.