I got hexagram 32 (Duration) with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines changing. The resultant hexagram is 2 (The Receptive.)
I could answer my inquiry without looking at my copy of the I Ching translation by Richard Wilhelm. Hexagram 32 has three firm lines and three yielding lines. In the reading, all of the firm lines change to yielding lines, creating a hexagram of only yielding lines. All of the firmness implied by an impeachment inquiry will dissipate, leaving only yielding reception.
But let’s go into the details. In my earlier inquiry about Trump, I also got hexagram 32 with the 2nd line changing. The I Ching is rather insistently telling me that nothing substantive has changed since my last inquiry. Readers may want to consult that reading too.
Duration is an image of marriage, of the dynamic process that keeps a family together and moving forward. Trump is head of the national family, and impeachment threats are essentially a family disagreement, where the children complain about the father’s actions. The hexagram says that since families are dynamic, Trump will remain the head, though he may change the way he leads the family.
The changing second line is the same as the previous reading. Please read my extended explanation of it there.
The changing third lines warns the inquirer that inconsistent meets with humiliation. This probably doesn’t apply to Trump, who is one of the most consistent characters, like it or not, that politics has seen in a while. So it must apply to the Democrats. They are warned that they must understand why they are looking at impeaching, and to maintain their character.
The changing fourth line says “No game in the field,” meaning the hunt will fail because there isn’t any game in the forest. It seems like a blunt warning that Trump’s Ukrainian conversation isn’t sufficient for impeachment in the people’s eyes.
The I Ching’s conclusion is that Trump will remain president, that the Democrats will have a hard time staying firm and united and that the justification for impeachment is insufficient.
My reading of the situation, clarified by the I Ching, is that when Trump threatened Zelensky in the phone call, Trump’s aides immediately realized that Trump had overstepped. They tried to cover up the conversation, but it was too late. Too many people had heard the conversation, and rumors began to spread through the government. One intelligence officer heard the rumor, and also the rumors of the coverup, and decided to become a whistle blower.
As part of their attempt to cover up Trump’s error, his aides asked for a ruling from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, which said that executive privilege overruled the whistle blower statue. The Office’s opinions are secret; the Office also wrote the torture memos that allowed torture after 9/11, but the memos were never publicly announced.
Congress saw that the administration has violated the letter of the whistle blower law, and had justified it with questionable logic about executive privilege. When they asked for the detailed logic, they were refused. The situation was clearly executive overreach. The House voted unanimously to ask for the complaint. On Tuesday, Sept 24, the Senate unanimously agreed. Both were non-binding resolutions, so had no power of law, but they warned the administration that Republicans wouldn’t accept such overreach either.
On Wednesday, Sept 25, Trump’s aides then made a wise decision — they provided Congress with the substantive text of the conversation and with the whistle blower’s complaint. They have not (at present) disclosed the whistle blower’s name or the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion; both are protected by law, and Trump’s aides acted correctly in not disclosing them. The material showed exactly what Trump did, and was a personal humiliation. However, it took all the wind out of the impeachment inquiry. Trump’s actions weren’t bad enough, and they weren’t covered up enough, for the people to become angry enough to force Trump out. Everyone understood that Trump’s mistakes were due to his well-known ignorance of law, and of his obsession with conspiracies. Though damaging, it didn’t show anything new about Trump.
Then on Friday, Sept 27, Democrats announced they were launching an impeachment inquiry. This puzzled me. Democrats had already gotten the information they wanted, and it was quite damaging. The public indignation Democrats seemed to expect was strictly partisan. I felt that impeachment wasn’t a viable threat, and was a mistake.
Today I see it a little differently. Impeachment is not weapon that Congress can use at this time, but is a viable threat not to overreach again.
In the end, Congress demonstrated that it has a whip hand, but Trump’s power had not been seriously threatened. It was just a family argument, and the wheels on the bus will keep turning.