It has occurred to several people that the Stein-Clinton-Soros recounts are quite unlikely to alter the election results. Hill would have to flip all three states to do this and the margins, while small, amount to a lot of votes.
Thing to notice here is that Jill Steins fund-me site seemed to be getting a donation of $650,000 every day at the same time. Also her lawyer on this effort is closely connected to George Soros. Big surprise here. So given that the effort is unlikely to change anything, why do it?
Credibility. If the three states are tied up in court with a slow moving recall, they may be unable to have their electors vote with the Electoral college on the designated date. This will leave the total 223-260 or thereabouts meaning that neither candidate will have enough votes to be declared the winner so the vote goes to the legislature which is currently controlled by Republicans. The House will elect Trump, and the Senate will elect Pence and so what?
The point would be to reduce the legitimacy of Trumps win for talking point purposes. Selected, not elected all over again although that argument carried little enough weight back in 2001 that I can't imagine it carrying as much this time outside of the NYT building. Just a Soros supplied red herring.
Delaying tactics are a specialty of lawyers with weak or non-existant cases so expect endless delays over procedures to be followed should the recount requests be granted, and remember it's all 3 or nothing here. If only one state turns down the request, it all disappears in a cloud of unicorn farts.
UPDATE: Apparently that is the strategy, although missing the application deadline in Pennsylvania negates the effort.