No they did not. They did get access to voter rolls in one (or maybe two? it's unclear) case, but that's it. Voter rolls and voting systems are not the same thing.
> but the most logical conclusion is that they did
No it is not. Most logical conclusion is that reading the data is much easier than changing it, and thus it is more likely that they gained just read access than that they gained both read and write access. Even if they did, changing voter rolls would not give them much, unless they somehow managed to also convince hundreds of people, otherwise ineligible to vote, to actually show up in person and vote using fake voter records (which would be an excellent case for voter ID if anybody in US politics could be bothered to have a logically consistent opinion). But most likely scenario is using these data for identity theft - as it includes driver license numbers, partial or full SSNs etc. - in short, everything you need to open an account online. By far the most likely scenario is stealing this data for commercial purposes.
> Even if they didn't, they should rightfully be charged for penetrating the voting systems at all.
They did not penetrate voter systems, they accessed voter rolls (list of voters). For which the culprits, of course, should be charged, even though it's mostly useless as there's no chance US can punish them in any way unless they are so stupid as to visit the US or a country which extradites to the US. Which astonishingly is what some people are stupid enough to do. Thus only "mostly".
Inventing people and getting someone to show up and vote as them isn't what you'd do with write access to voter rolls. Instead you'd want to remove or corrupt existing voter information. This would cause huge delays at polling places as people protest their inability to vote and go through the provisional ballot process. If every voter went through with that we'd be fine as enough provisional ballots to tip an election means they have to get validated. The likely outcome however would be people giving up on voting because they're out of time and/or patience and leaving before they ever get a ballot, provisional or not.
Target voters in enough locations likely to have large turnout for your opponent and you'd be able to tip the election in your favor, so long as you had any chance at all to win. This wouldn't be enough to help someone who is going to lose 83/17 but a 60/40 loss could be tipped your way and that's what most outcomes in the US are.
> Instead you'd want to remove or corrupt existing voter information. This would cause huge delays at polling places as people protest their inability to vote and go through the provisional ballot process.
Do you think if it really happened we'd notice it? So far I am not aware of any case of vote being disrupted to any noticeable measure along the scenario you describe, anywhere. So this appears to be pure speculation.
> This wouldn't be enough to help someone who is going to lose 83/17 but a 60/40 loss could be tipped your way and that's what most outcomes in the US are.
Yet there is, as far as I know, not a single case of election ever being tipped this way. By other forms of fraud - surely, though even then it's very hard to connect specific instances of fraud to specific outcomes - but this kind of fraud, never happened.
No they did not. They did get access to voter rolls in one (or maybe two? it's unclear) case, but that's it. Voter rolls and voting systems are not the same thing.
> but the most logical conclusion is that they did
No it is not. Most logical conclusion is that reading the data is much easier than changing it, and thus it is more likely that they gained just read access than that they gained both read and write access. Even if they did, changing voter rolls would not give them much, unless they somehow managed to also convince hundreds of people, otherwise ineligible to vote, to actually show up in person and vote using fake voter records (which would be an excellent case for voter ID if anybody in US politics could be bothered to have a logically consistent opinion). But most likely scenario is using these data for identity theft - as it includes driver license numbers, partial or full SSNs etc. - in short, everything you need to open an account online. By far the most likely scenario is stealing this data for commercial purposes.
> Even if they didn't, they should rightfully be charged for penetrating the voting systems at all.
They did not penetrate voter systems, they accessed voter rolls (list of voters). For which the culprits, of course, should be charged, even though it's mostly useless as there's no chance US can punish them in any way unless they are so stupid as to visit the US or a country which extradites to the US. Which astonishingly is what some people are stupid enough to do. Thus only "mostly".