This morning, a federal judge will hear whether Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman should be held in contempt if he finds that they blew past a deadline to tell recipients of their robocalls that the messages were false and illegal.

Background, @ColinKalmbacher https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/jacob-wohl-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-is-in-danger-of-being-held-in-contempt-of-court/

Follow @ColinKalmbacher and @LawCrimeNews for coverage of the proceedings.

Judge Marrero, whose recent ruling excoriated Burkman and Wohl for engaging in “electoral terror,” has joined the line.

The duo's criminal and civil lawyers are on the line.

Wohl and Burkman's attorney David Schwartz: "Every single word in that robocall was truthful."

He doubles-down later:

"Every single statement in that robocall was truthful."

Wohl and Burkman's criminal counsel Scott Grabel is on the line because prosecutors in two states allege that the robocalls were not only false, but felonies.

Judge Marrero reminds the duo's counsel that these are civil proceedings, not criminal ones, in response to their Fifth Amendment arguments.

He also disputes their claim that he had no evidence before him when he issued the ruling.

Judge Marrero asks that if it's true that the defendants possess the robocoll list, what basis would they have not to comply with his order?

Grabel replies that it might taint a witness in terms of how witnesses perceive a call.

"If that's the case, why would you call such a witness?" Marrero responds, referring to a witness who perceives the robocall differently based on the court-ordered corrective.

Marrero adds of the defendants' argument: "It's not a very persuasive point for this court."

Cutting their losses, Wohl and Burkman's lawyers request the alternative remedy of modifying the language of the court-ordered message to strike their client's names—to minimize the "prejudicial effect."

National Coalition on Black Civic Participation's counsel Rachelle Navarro, whose client brought the case, argues against striking Wohl and Burkman's names from the curative call.

"This whole case is about the intimidation of voters," she notes.

Striking the names from the curative call would make it harder for the recipients of the original to make the connection, she adds.

The judge orders the parties to discuss what message should be sent and report back. Hearing adjourned.

Check out @colinkalmbacher's story soon.