You're being pretty condescending, for someone who clearly didn't read the actual cited text. (Additionally, you conflate neat spelling with legal knowledge, which seems like a bit of a stretch. I say that as somone with dyslexia and a doctoral degree.)
The fact is,
@Cherico is correct, and you are actually misreading the cited text. Let me quote it here, without the (perhaps confusing) page break and footnotes in-between:
NARA informed Plaintiff that it would proceed with "provid[ing] the FBI access to the records in question, as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Tuesday, May 12, 2022."
Notice the date, here: May 12th. Note, then, that Mar-A-Lago was raided August 8th. You may also observe that the sentence does
not, in fact, imply that "the incumbent President" [Joe Biden] requested access to the documents [seized in the raid] for himself, post facto, as you seem to think. Read again. The sentence states that Joe Biden requested that
the FBI be given access to the documents [
to be seized], a priori.
Biden requested that the FBI be given special access to those documents, in the context of preparing the raid. From this, it may reasonably be surmised that Biden either instigated the raid, or was actively abetting the FBI in setting it up. Either way, his protestations of innocence -- the claim that he had no advance knowledge of the raid -- becomes extremely dubious with this revelation.
After all, the only possible third alternative to the above is that Biden is in the habit of providing the FBI with access to specific documents, without even being aware why access is being requested. Which would absolve him of abuse of power (in this case, at least), but would consequently mean that he's indeed just an anthropomorphic rubber stamp for now largely unchecked executive agencies...
In conclusion: your eagerness to jump to the defence of Joe Biden and his supposed virtue is no doubt inspired by your humanistic impulses -- but at least in this instance, it is also sorely misguided; because, in the end, your lecturing of others notwithstanding, you still didn't actually read the cited text properly. It doesn't say what you thought it said.