The Trump administration will not support a one-time Jan. 6 defendant”s bid to have his criminal conviction and sentence set aside – rejecting a collection of arguments regarding the fairness of his trial and subsequent sentencing in federal district court.

In August, former U.S. Marine and NYPD officer Thomas Webster filed a relatively obscure motion asking for the relief in question.

In his petition for writ of error coram nobis, Webster alleged his jury was not impartial, that the court wrongly denied him the ability to cross-examine his victim, wrongly instructed the jury on one count, and subsequently sentenced him unreasonably compared to others.

Now, the government argues his claims are not particularly relevant in a legal sense, and to the extent Webster does raise any valid claims, they simply are not enough for “extraordinary coram nobis relief.”

The name of the petition filed by Webster is legalese for “errors before us,” and effectively implores a court to correct errors of law based on facts that were unknown at the time of judgment.

In May 2022, Webster was convicted of assaulting, resisting, or impeding an officer with a dangerous weapon for attacking Metropolitan Police Officer Noah Rathbun while swinging a metal flagpole and shouting slogans of rage like: “You f–ing commie f–” and “You f–ing piece of s–.”

In September 2022, Webster was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison. Finally, in May 2024, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously rejected Webster’s arguments of juror bias.

Webster was then among the Jan. 6 rioters granted a full pardon by President Donald Trump after he began his second term in January.

Now, in a 38-page motion in opposition, Department of Justice attorneys say Webster knew or should have known the basis of the claims he is trying to advance – months after being pardoned.

And, in fact, the government says, Webster is simply trying to repackage a host of arguments that have repeatedly failed before.

“Here, Webster failed to articulate a valid reason for his failure to litigate his due process claims during his trial and direct appeal proceedings,” the motion reads. “He merely argues, without proof, that the ‘evidence did not come available until after [his] appeal concluded.’ But by not advancing this supposed new evidence, Webster has not established a valid reason for failing to litigate the claim sooner. He knew about the facts concerning the investigation into Officer Rathbun’s unrelated use of force that underlie his current due process claims prior to trial, during trial, and on direct appeal.”

And, on a more basic level, Webster has not shown – or even attempted to show by pleading – “any adverse consequence” from his conviction, according to the government’s opposition motion.

“Webster failed to allege any adverse consequence,” the motion goes on. “He simply listed his convictions, described his case’s procedural and substantive history, pleaded his claims, and requested that the Court ‘vacate the conviction.'”

This conclusory rundown of his case means Webster “lacks standing to sue,” the government says, because he has failed to plead an “injury in fact” that is “concrete and particularized” and “fairly traceable” to the actions taken by his trial court judge.

Another section of the government’s motion credits the government’s case against Webster in an effort to dispute claims of prejudice.

“This argument is unpersuasive because ‘overwhelming evidence’ showed Webster was not engaged in self-defense when he brutally assaulted Officer Rathbun,” the opposition motion reads.

The government sums up the violence that day, at length:

Here, Webster joined “an unruly mob” at the Capitol. Despite being a retired police officer who understood that bike racks created a police line “to keep people back,” Webster “tried to get past them nonetheless.” Webster confronted the “overwhelmed” Officer Rathbun as he stood behind the bike racks, telling him to “take [his] shit off.” Officer Rathbun gave Webster “a visible signal, that that was a perimeter he was not supposed to pass.” Webster needed “to back up because he had reached over the perimeter of the bike rack.” Officer Rathbun then pushed Webster away from the bike rack “to create some distance between he and the perimeter.”

That did not deter Webster. He snatched the bike rack and pushed it towards Officer Rathbun twice, prompting Officer Rathbun to “incidentally” contact Webster’s face with an open hand that Officer Rathbun was “taught to do” in crowd control situations…

Yet, Webster then swung his flagpole “in a chopping motion” towards Officer Rathbun and other officers, forcing them to “step back.” Because of Webster’s pole chop, the bike racks came apart, and rioters moved forward. Amidst this chaos, Officer Rathbun seized Webster’s flagpole. Webster then blitzed Officer Rathbun, knocking Officer Rathbun to the ground and grabbing at his helmet, choking him with the chin strap. And Webster exposed Officer Rathbun to riot gas by trying to remove Officer Rathbun’s gas mask. Webster knocked Officer Rathbun to the ground one last time “and got on top of” Officer Rathbun before the altercation ended.

In the end, jurors heard from both Rathbun and Webster – including the defendant’s “testimony about the altercation, where he attempted to justify his actions as self-defense.” And, the DOJ says, that adversarial process was fair enough, despite the defendant’s efforts to cross-examine Rathbun or show additional video of Rathbun dealing with another rioter.

“So, by the end of trial, the jury had considered videos, pictures, and both men’s accounts of the altercation,” the motion continues. “Its verdict was a decision between the two differing accounts, and it credited Officer Rathbun’s over Webster’s, which was the jury’s prerogative.”

The extensive evidence shown during the trial proves Webster, a former police officer, “knew better” and was not prejudiced – certainly not enough to receive coram nobis relief, the government argues.