It happened again Tuesday evening as it does most nights for David Cohen, former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency and onetime Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in the Obama administration. “Every night before I go to sleep—every single night—I check the Post and Times websites for the latest bombshell, and I am frequently then unable to sleep.”

The Boston-bred attorney alluded to The Washington Post and The New York Times, which continue to play what can seems to be their private game of Can You Top This? as they cover the Trump administration. It was much the same throughout the 2016 campaign, with one breaking a great story, the other soon surfacing with its own.

Wednesday it was the Times (no, not CNN, despite the network's constant repetition of having first learned about the matter and flashing that “Breaking News” chyron) that disclosed that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was questioned last week as part of the special counsel investigation of Robert Mueller. Then it was the Post disclosing that Mueller was trying to question President Trump about his booting National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and FBI Director James Comey.

It doesn't stop. Back in the late winter and spring, I'd compiled a list of the Trump and Hillary Clinton-related scoops by each for a Vanity Fair look at what might be the last great newspaper war.

It was unceasing and encapsulated in Times reporter Peter Baker sitting in the press cabin of Air Force One, on the way to Saudi Arabia, and being told in a call from his boss that the paper was about to disclose that Trump had called Comey a “nut job” in a meeting with Russian officials.

But soon he was staring at Fox News Channel—what else do you figure is on inside Air Force One?—and seeing word of the Post, his alma mater, was breaking a tale on how an FBI investigation of the Trump campaign and possible Russian influence had identified “a current White House official as a significant person of interest.”

Many others have done great work but the two papers remain ahead of the pack. It's why a sophisticated news consumer like Cohen—he oversaw sanctions again Iran, Russia and Cuba at Treasury, while seeking to impede funding of ISIS—checks them out before conking out.

And, yet, unanswered questions

So the Times’s Michael Schmidt was the one who disclosed that “Attorney General Jeff Sessions was interviewed by Mueller's investigators last week as part of investigation into obstruction and Russian meddling. 1st member of cabinet known to have been interviewed by Mueller.”

He also tweeted this: “Sessions interview reminds me of big question I get — and don’t have an answer to — from nearly every person (lawyers, partisans of all color, legal experts, etc.) involved in/tracking/following Mueller investigation: how has deputy AG Rod Rosenstein not recused himself?”

As previously noted here, Harvard Law's Jack Goldsmith has earlier offered three distinct theories as why Rosenstein has not. After Schmidt's scoop, he offered a fourth theory: “that the obstruction inquiry narrowly focuses on Flynn and not the Comey firing.” But, he conceded, “None of these theories is entirely convincing in light of public evidence.”

So we don't really know. It's true with most of Mueller's investigation. We don't really know what he was asking Sessions about or what's the significance of talking to Trump. It was why it was refreshing to watch CNN's Jeffrey Toobin asked about the investigation as it might pertain to financial dealings between Trump and Russian—and answering he doesn't know.