[Jill Stein is] pushing for these recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.  But let's face it -- she was nowhere near winning ANY of these states. [....]  Stein is obviously a proxy/agent for Hillary -- so Hillary won't have to appear even more of a sore loser by whining and calling for a recount.

Would that be the Hillary whose campaign-proxies in the "mainstream news (& entertainment) media" did their mendacious (I doubt it was as benign as merely disingenuous) best to create a stink about Trump's refusal to unconditionally accept the "results of the election"?   When objective informed voters contemplate the corruption of the voting process caused by the illogical-but-vocal opposition--especially by Democrats and their identity-group sheep--to common-sense new laws that legally required voters to present verifiable identification before being issued a ballot?

Stein got less than 1% of the vote. Give me a break!  She can't possibly be interested in this for personal or professional reasons. [....] 

In Florida, state law provides an automatic recount when the margin of the vote in a contest is 1/2% (i.e.: 1/2 of 1%).  Methinks I recall a limit in state law on granting unplanned recounts simply upon a candidate's formal request, (and I think I recall it) requiring a 1% preliminarily reported margin of votes cast in the contest (but that latter number is from fallible memory, so perhaps I ought to look it up and report herein).

Altho' I'm reluctant to place limits on the fundamental act of a representative republic, it seems to me that a candidate ought to be required to be within 10% margin of (i.e.: relative to) the winning vote, or most generously, perhaps no margin any greater than 33% (that being the additive inverse to the majority required for ratifying treaties &c.) to be able to cause a recount without demonstrating probable cause for a miscount.  Not just in any court of law within the jurisdiction of the elective office, but in a court that completely encloses that jurisdiction."}

It has to be a "suitcase full of cash" [....]

Methinks the Clinton Foundation would be eager to hand over at least 1 "suitcase full of cash" while it has such riches available.  Because a settled Electoral-College vote that confirms the election of D.J. Trump as president of the U.S.A. will devastate the  bribery  earnings of the Clinton Foundation.