The great English writer Samuel Johnson once told a friend, “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

The quote came to mind after reading the response of Abbe Lowell, legal counsel for Hunter Biden, to the issuance of subpoenas for Hunter and other family members by the House Oversight Committee. Lowell said that “Hunter is eager to have the opportunity, in a public forum” — but premised that on the condition that it be “the right time” for Hunter to speak. He also dismissed the committee investigation as a “political stunt.”

It appears that further concentration is warranted. A congressional subpoena is really not an invitation for a sit-down at a convenient time. Hunter has spent years relying on denial and delay to fend off inquiries. With this subpoena, he will now have to choose between cooperation or contempt … on the committee’s schedule.

The issuance of subpoenas to Hunter, his uncle, James Biden, and Biden family associate Rob Walker, changes the entire threat — and the range of options — for the Bidens. Attorney General Merrick Garland moved quickly and aggressively to prosecute Trump associates such as Steve Bannon who failed to appear or cooperate with Congress. The public will demand the same vigorous prosecution in the face of any similar contempt by Biden associates.

Moreover, Hunter has tried a wide array of approaches to these allegations of influence peddling, from a plea for sympathy to threats of litigation. Too many in the media have been willing enablers of these shifting claims, including figures like Jimmy Kimmel who conducted a softball interview that portrayed Hunter as a hero rather than an alleged influence peddler.

That may now change. If Hunter lies to congressional investigators, he can be charged with a federal crime. While the Justice Department allowed the statutes of limitations to run on various felonies, Hunter would be faced with a new set of charges with years for criminal charges to be brought by prosecutors.

The situation is equally serious for the president’s brother, James, who has long been accused by House Republicans of influence peddling. Most recently, House investigators disclosed that, in 2018, James Biden received two loans totaling $600,000 from Americore Health, which they described as “a financially distressed and failing rural hospital operator.” The company has been referenced in past reports of alleged influence peddling by James Biden.

According to the company’s bankruptcy proceedings, it made the loans “based upon representations that his last name, ‘Biden,’ could ‘open doors’” to new overseas investors. On the day he received the second loan transfer, James Biden allegedly sent a check for the same amount — $200,000 — to Joe Biden as a “loan reimbursement.”

The House committee also reports finding a $40,000 check from James Biden and his wife to Joe Biden. Again, it was marked as a “loan reimbursement.”

Congressional interviews can be perilous, but they are far more so when your client’s interview will cover years of transactions and statements. It presents a target-rich environment for investigators and ample opportunities for witnesses to make misleading or false statements.

Hunter and his uncle may soon have company. In addition to a subpoena for Biden family associate Rob Walker, the House committee has requested voluntary transcripted interviews with Sara Biden, Hallie Biden, Elizabeth Secundy, Melissa Cohen and onetime Hunter business associate Tony Bobulinski.

Figures like Bobulinski are likely to cooperate. He already has accused President Biden of lying about his lack of knowledge of foreign dealings, including giving detailed accounts of meeting with Joe Biden in a hotel.

However, committees often first request voluntary interviews before issuing subpoenas. As with Hunter and James Biden, the committee has ample grounds to demand these interviews as part of both its impeachment inquiry and its oversight authority.

In anticipation, perhaps, Hunter is reviving his addiction defense, even claiming that the investigations into his conduct are a blow against anyone who is fighting addiction. It is a curious effort since his counsel recently claimed that federal gun charges are invalid because his client had a period of sobriety just in time to sign the allegedly false gun application. That is the type of fluid, conflicted narrative that can produce criminal charges in congressional investigations.

Samuel Johnson’s observation is particularly poignant in this case, given the subject. It was a reference to William Dodd, an Anglican clergyman, accused of being a spendthrift who became indebted due to his extravagant lifestyle. He forged a document to secure a “loan” to help clear his debts. Johnson tried unsuccessfully to keep him from the gallows, but he wrote a sermon before his death, titled, “The Convict’s Address to his unhappy Brethren.” Johnson was widely believed to have been the true author and defended his friend by saying that the hanging brought out the best of him.

It remains to be seen if these subpoenas will bring out the best or worst of Hunter Biden. Thus far, he has received every break from federal prosecutors, from expired statutes of limitations to reported tip-offs on investigators’ interviews. That will now change. Either Hunter will concentrate his mind, or congressional investigators will do it for him.

Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.