How does that even get past the laugh out loud test?
The posting of a bond is set forth in the state law, with an amount to be set based on anticipated costs that might be assessed against the party asking to invalidate the election.
Stein's initial filing at the state level had far less evidence than is required by statute, including no actual evidence of an illegal election. Her lawyers pointed to attempts to hack into voting registration systems in other states as evidence, but those events have nothing to do with the actual election in Pennsylvania. Her petition included a declaration from a professor who relied on a DHS press release, but the press release itself contradicts the professor's position.
The filings in the Pennsylvania state court action are here
They just hope to get another Obama judge!
Another Freeper pointed out last week that the Stein campaign may have never raised the money they claimed they raised. Some people saw a regular pattern in the ongoing incremental changes in their running fundraising total and identified it as evidence of a donor using a "bot" to circumvent contribution limits. This Freeper pointed out that it may have been simply been something written into the software to fabricate fictitious "contributions" just to make it look like they were raising a lot of money.
The green party has lost elections in PA before with the same recount laws on the books and never complained. Precedent of acceptance has been set.