The normal answer to this is to request a bill of particulars, which was not requested here (afaict from the docket).

I think there is some slightly down-in-the-weeds confusion here - what does an indictment require vs ...

I think they screwed this up at trial and then tried to argue the indictment was insufficient, but i doubt they will get any appeals court to bite on this.

I posted it elsewhere, but you can listen to the oral argument of the appeal here:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/23-4451-20250912....

It is a very accessible argument (in the sense of not need legal knowledge to usefully process it).

You can hear the judges sort of struggle to understand how this is an indicment opportunity, but really do seem to be trying to understand. They give counsel an opportunity to try to distinguish and explain things. Att around 10 minutes, one of the judges asks counsel for the bset case he has that says he's right, and he can't come up with one at all.

Which is probably the point at which he lost this appeal. :)

As i said elsehwere, i don't blame the lawyer - this seems like it woudl be a very hard case to win because of choices made at the level below. They are essentially arguing things they know will lose because nobody objected to things they should have at the level below.