Move over, John Dean.  You have some competition on the way to becoming the most famous witness against a powerful politician, aka a “rat.”  Bryan Pagliano has been given immunity from prosecution in order to overcome his invocation of Fifth Amendment's protections against self-incrimination for his work on Hillary Clinton’s email server.  But just what does he have to say?

Jed Babbin makes some very knowledgeable guesses in the American Spectator:

Pagliano must have had direction from Clinton — and her top staffers — to set the email system up the way he did. Because he was paid by Clinton — in addition to his State Department salary — he had to be suspicious of the whole matter. He may be able to testify that Clinton told him she wanted a system that would enable her to use it for all her government emails. He would have had to have known that a substantial portion of them had to, going forward, contain classified information.

Pagliano may also be able to testify as to instructions he received from Clinton and her top staffers — Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan — on how to maintain the system. He should also be able to testify on the relationship Clinton and her staff had with Platte River Networks, a company Clinton hired to help maintain it (which had no security clearance to do so). (snip)

The next step for the FBI and the Justice Department would be to interview Abedin, Mills, and Sullivan to see if they’re willing to testify against Clinton (remember Susan MacDougal?) or go to jail in order to protect her. All three are believed to have copied classified information from the Secured Protocols Network (“SIPRNET”) and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Collection Networks (“JWICS”) — the classified information networks the government maintains — to open emails on Clinton’s system at her direction.

They are also believed to have illegally shared passwords to SIPRNET and JWICS in furtherance of her directions. Each of them could be looking at a long jail term.

My guess is that Huma, who has dedicated her life to ingratiating herself with Hillary and who comes from a family dedicated to the Long Jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood, will go to jail rather than testify.  Cheryl Mills has very long history with Clinton and may also clam up.  That leaves Sullivan, and I have no insight into his stance.  But if Pagliano offers evidence that he violated the law, and if the FBI forensic team has recovered the deleted emails and tech steps taken with them, the evidence against him could be sufficient to dangle a long prison term before him as the alternative to spilling his guts.

I agree with Jonathan F. Keiler and Daniel John Sobieski that the odds are that we will see an FBI effort to prosecute Hillary, and that all political calculations about the election may have to be thrown out, even if the DoJ and Obama decline to prosecute.  Babbin also sees:

I am not yet so cynical as to believe that FBI Director James Comey and his team won’t demand that Clinton and her aides be indicted. It may come down to them threatening to resign loudly if those indictments aren’t forthcoming.