(11-15-2020, 01:02 PM)rpmaluki Wrote: He never got a chance to use it because somewhere between S2 and the first half of S4, they'd decided to be allies working together. Turning on Nick would not have benefited him after his very short but bloody stint under Jack the Ripper's control. If he burnt Nick right then, they could have easily done the same with him.
I do think he was dumbed down in S5. He went from someone in control of his own destiny, charting his own path to a yes man for Bonaparte. He had his chance to bury Nick then after he had him arrested but didn't because for the most part, Bonaparte was the one steering the ship. With him gone, he tried to consolidate his power within BC but it was too late, he'd already lost the only leverage he had, and had became vulnerable to Nick and his scoobies after they stole his laptop and files and whatever else of value to Renard. BC realised he was no longer of value/useful so they dumped him. He was a far cry from S1 Renard who was more proactive instead of reactive. It didn't matter how long he held on to the incriminating evidence, according to the show, he lost it the day Nick's friends broke into his office and took it from him. He then proceeded to spend the rest of the season an outcast that was only ever allowed back in the circle because his daughter was in danger. You can postulate that he had copies hidden elsewhere but the show never presented that as probability. Renard was rendered powerless to stopping Nick/making sure he stayed in jail or remained a fugitive for the rest of his natural life because he'd lost the only proof he had against him.
You say there was incriminating evidence against Sean. What was it and when did Nick use it against him?
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.