Green Party nominee Jill Stein. Getty/Justin Sullivan Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is raising money for a recount in several key states following New York magazine's report that several top computer scientists told Hillary Clinton's campaign that they had found possible voter manipulation in several states.

In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Stein press director Meleiza Figueroa said Stein would be filing for a recount, though Figueroa said she "can't let you know the details yet."

"The Green Party has always been at the forefront of fights to stand up for our democracy," Figueroa said.

Stein also announced a fund-raising campaign to "demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania," where the campaign claimed there are "significant discrepancies in vote totals."

As of midday Wednesday, Stein had raised less than $10,000. That's nowhere near her goal of raising $2.5 million by Friday, which is around $500,000 less than she raised in the entire election cycle.

It's unclear why Stein is raising money to spur a recount that would in theory throw the election to Clinton, whom Stein called the "queen of corruption."

The Guardian reported on Tuesday that activists had approached Stein, who declined to pursue a recount, citing a lack of funds.

The Green Party candidate appears to be slightly in debt. According to a Federal Election Commission filing from mid-October, Stein had just under $30,000 less on hand than she owed in campaign debts.

Despite the FBI's contention that Russia was involved in several hacks aimed at sewing discord within in the Democratic Party, many experts argued that the claims of actual vote interference appear thin.

Sources in New York magazine's report argued that there may be electronic voting machine manipulation. However, although Pennsylvania primarily relies on electronic voting machines, experts contend that they're virtually unhackable because they are so outdated and do not have internet connection capabilities. And Michigan uses only paper ballots.

Vox noted that New York magazine's report presented only one clear example of voting discrepancies. According to the New York magazine report, Clinton performed worse on average in Wisconsin counties that used electronic voting machines, but it could be that Trump simply performed better in those counties.

Princeton polling expert Sam Wang argued that polling error appeared far more likely: