Here's a good summary of the Mueller probe's indictments, convictions, and sentences: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury
Many close associates of Trump were bagged for anything from giving false statements to the FBI to tax fraud to campaign finance violation.
Some additional context:
--Many (about two dozen) of Mueller's indictments were of Russian individuals and businesses outside of U.S. jurisdiction and protected by Putin. That explains the relatively low indictment-to-conviction ratio.
--In other ways, he Mueller probe could have gone farther than it did. There were some leads that were not pursued: perhaps out of political deference to Trump. Example: I'm surprised they never tried to put Donald Trump Jr. under oath, despite his emails with the Russian lawyer about anti-Hillary election dirt.
--Why didn't the probe go harder after Trump? Well: Sitting Presidents can't be criminally indicted per OLC guidance. It would have been fruitless. Accountability for sitting Presidents is reserved to Congress under the impeachment provisions contained in the U.S. Constitution.
--So: Why didn't Democrats impeach Trump for this? Because they actually followed the evidence where it led: and the evidence wasn't sufficient to show Trump's direct involvement in any of the criminality.
--And, of course, Trump *was* impeached just a few months after this report was released for his own election-interference conduct in Ukraine, where there *was* smoking-gun evidence of his direct involvement in seeking a foreign country to announce a baseless investigation on a political rival's son. See: portion of Zelensky call transcript, above.
Republicans still didn't care.
Caption this Meme 