Then elsewhere in the article it said the documents at Mar-a-Lago were being stored in a SCIF:
"The files were being stored in a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as an SCIF"
And actually the full sentence deceptively implied that the Justice Dept went there and moved the files:
"The files were being stored in a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as an SCIF, while Justice Department officials debated how to proceed, the two people familiar with the matter said."
But the rest of the article doesn't actually state that they went to Mar-a-Lago and removed files. There is a SCIF at Mar-a-Lago where the files were probably always stored. This is likely a carefully crafted deceptive comment like the implication that Trump wasn't supposed to have classified documents.
This is all wrong. Everything you've said is wrong. No, the article is not saying that the documents were stored in a SCIF in Mar-a-Lago. It's saying that they were stored in a SCIF while Justice Department officials debated how to proceed, meaning that after - not during, but after - the time they were in Trump's possession, they were placed in a SCIF, hence them being there
while Justice Department officials debated how to proceed. They wouldn't have been debating how to proceed before they even had possession of the documents, after all. That wouldn't make any sense. There's nothing about the article's phrasing deceptively implying that the Department of Justice were the ones who moved the documents, because the article makes it clear that it was the National Archives that did it:
The Post later reported that officials had recovered 15 boxes of presidential records from Mar-a-Lago, and that they suspected Trump had possibly violated laws concerning the handling of government documents — including those that might be considered classified.
This links to another article entitled
"National Archives had to retrieve Trump White House records from Mar-a-Lago", which the Archives have confirmed as having happened. So your argument relies on pretending that an event already firmly established as having happened hadn't really happened, and taking it for granted that a slight ambiguity of wording means the exact opposite of what the article is claiming happened. The latter point could theoretically be true, I'll admit. It's possible that Trump could have been keeping the documents in Mar-a-Lago in a SCIF and meticulously paying close attention to the legal requirements of proper document storage. But to just assume that's
probably what happened, given the many, many stories over the course of Trump's presidency of his regular use of unsecured equipment and email servers, holding important discussions at public parties, whipping out classified information to brag to foreign nationals, and my personal favorite, that time he casually tweeted a
surveillance photo of Iran, is insane. And to a degree, Trump's cavalier attitude towards national security and classified information was legally covered when he was the president, given how the president has ultimate authority over the classification of information. But he's not the president anymore, and he can't just do whatever he wants anymore either.