==people who are hoping that there will be a wave of indictments against the current administration are going to be severely disappointed.==
We have already seen someone within his administration get indicted (Flynn). Then we saw that person agree to a plea deal. Not sure what defines a "wave", but it's reasonable to think that Flynn was offered a plea deal in exchange for providing evidence on someone higher up than himself. Now, we have reports that Gates is locking in a plea deal (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/rick-gates-plea-deal...), we don't know what/who he is trading for the deal.
==suddenly Russian interference was no longer the focus of headlines.==
Here you are focusing on what the media reports instead of what the investigation has shown us. The investigation has now yielded 3 plea deals (one more being negotiated) and almost 20 indictments. These investigations aren't public (until indictments) and don't move at the media's preferred speed. Instead, they focus on things we can see and hear like Trump (and Nunes) actively obstructing justice.
I should have phrased what I was saying better. The hope of many is that there's going to be some smoking gun that results in the prosecution of a sitting president for conspiring with the Russians to secure his election win.
What we have had instead are indictments against campaign members for either process crimes (like lying to the FBI) or crimes committed well before the Trump campaign even existed (Manafort's money laundering.) And now we have indictments for Russians doing the things we already knew they were doing -- trying to cause chaos in the election. You can speculate all day long about the implications of plea deals and what they mean but it's all speculative and in general, if it's assuming some more nefarious scheme that suits a particular political agenda, in my view wishful thinking.
It's a nice rhetorical trick by the media to say "former Trump campaign members have been indicted" to try to instill the narrative that actual crimes were committed by the Trump campaign towards influencing the election through coordination with Russians, but this rhetorical trick is in the same category as the "hacking the election" one cited by the OP -- deliberate framing to re-enforce a narrative that up to this point is still unproven.
Flynn, a very high ranking administration member, plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his communication with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislak. This crime happened while Trump was in office (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/01/flyn...).
Why would Flynn lie to the FBI about this if it was innocuous? Certainly, he knows the consequences. You would like us to assume a 4-star General lied to the FBI about communicating with a high-ranking Russian official, because reasons. The rest of us are combining this with information on Kushner trying to set up a Russian back-channel, Sessions lying about contacts with Kislyak, Manafort offering Deripaska campaign briefings, Trump literally asking the Russians to hack for him, Don Jr. meeting in Trump Tower, etc.
People are speculating because the Mueller investigation is not leaking any information. The flip side is people acting like he has "nothing", meanwhile surprise indictments are flying and people are cutting deals.
==And now we have indictments for Russians doing the things we already knew they were doing==
So, yesterday this "assumption" was valid, but any other assumptions based on the information we have are just wishful thinking. Logical pretzel.
I think by this point since you consider yourself a member of "the rest of us" it's plainly obvious you have a horse in this race and/or have a warped view of the ideaspace around what is going on with various investigations and inquiries happening across branches of the US government and agencies. I, personally, do not, and am not willing to speculate beyond about what has been revealed so far and the general prior that a sitting president will be impeached due to a conspiracy with the Russian government seems highly unlikely. So you've kind of validated my point. There are countless counter-narratives based upon similar speculation that are equally well grounded (ie, not much) than the ones that you've laid out here that counter your speculative point of view. Once you've digested the actual matters of fact that have been disclosed to the public in full (especially primary sources) then personally I think the most wise takeaway is to abandon most assumptions about information you are not privy to and generally just ground expectations in rough probabilities based on history and expect there to be large amounts of unexpected events to occur that you will be not able to predict. The narrative you've outlined here tells me you may be consuming information from within a filter bubble so I'd encourage you to try to break out of it.
In short: people who are fantasizing about their political enemies going to jail should expect to be disappointed, and as I said, I expect this chapter in American history orbiting paranoia about Russian bots posting spam on Facebook to generally be lost and forgotten within an election cycle.
We have already seen someone within his administration get indicted (Flynn). Then we saw that person agree to a plea deal. Not sure what defines a "wave", but it's reasonable to think that Flynn was offered a plea deal in exchange for providing evidence on someone higher up than himself. Now, we have reports that Gates is locking in a plea deal (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/rick-gates-plea-deal...), we don't know what/who he is trading for the deal.
==suddenly Russian interference was no longer the focus of headlines.==
Here you are focusing on what the media reports instead of what the investigation has shown us. The investigation has now yielded 3 plea deals (one more being negotiated) and almost 20 indictments. These investigations aren't public (until indictments) and don't move at the media's preferred speed. Instead, they focus on things we can see and hear like Trump (and Nunes) actively obstructing justice.