"All possible pronunciations" is a pretty tall order.
As far as I know, "que" in Latin does not exist as an independent word, only as the enclitic/suffix -que, which doesn't receive stress in prose (the existence of "stress" in Latin poetry is a disputed point). Latin -que is a conjunction that can be translated as "and".
The "Ecclesiastical" (Italian-based, although perhaps not exactly identical to Italian) pronunciation of -que would be something like [kwɛ]. There doesn't seem to be any clear rule about the use of [e] vs. [ɛ] in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation, so [kwe] might also be possible. There is no contrast between [kw], [kʷ] and [ku̯] in this context, so you might see the onset transcribed as any of these.
The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is approximately the same. The onset is the "qu" sound, and the nucleus is the "ĕ" ("short e") sound (with the exception that, according to Lewis and Short, the vowel may be lengthened in the "arsis" in poetry). The Classical Latin "qu" sound has been variously analyzed as either a single labiovelar phoneme /kʷ/ or as a sequence /kw/. We will never be able to be sure of the exact phonetic realization. Latin didn't have a contrast of velar vs. palatal plosives, or front rounded vs. back rounded glides; it has been suggested that in Classical Latin the glide of the "qu" sound was fronted before a front vowel. Wiktionary gives a reconstructed phonetic transcription "[kᶣɛ]", although I would expect the plosive part of the "qu" to also be fronted in a context like that, so maybe something like [cᶣɛ] would be possible. (In various modern Romance languages, such as French, the velar stop phonemes are supposed to have palatal stop allophones that are used before front vowels.)
There seems to be general agreement on the value of Classical Latin ĕ being [ɛ], although [e] may have existed as an allophone (e.g. it has been suggested that a realization like [e] could occur in words like meum).
The distinct phoneme ē ("long e") is reconstructed as being [eː] for at least some of the Classical Latin time period; from what I've read, ē is often thought to have been [ɛː] at some earlier stage.
As mentioned, other traditions have further variations in pronunciation. "Qu" is traditionally /kv/ (phonetically, devoicing of the /v/ may occur in contexts like this in many languages, so possibly [kf]) in German pronunciation, and I think in the pronunciation of some other regions. "Qu" in traditional French pronunciation is often pronounced as French /k/, which as mentioned above is supposed to have [c] as an allophone.
From what I remember, in German pronunciation vowel "length" and "quality" is traditionally determined mostly from context (such as syllable structure), so the traditional German pronunciation of "-que" would I think be /kveː/, not /kvɛ/.
I don't know how French traditional pronunciation treated the vowel "e" in contexts like this, but I doubt that /ɛ/ would be used.
In "traditional English pronunciation" of Latin, "-que" would be something like /kwi/ (since it is unstressed, I think the vowel would be /i/ and not /iː/, although I'm not entirely sure).
The "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation would be something like [ˈand͡ʒɛli].
In a "reference" Italian accent, a coda nasal assimilates in place to a following plosive; I don't know enough to give a detailed description of the quality of "[n]" in this context, but Wikipedia suggests it would be something like [n̠ʲ].
The "a" vowel of Italian and Ecclesiastical Latin is typically described as being phonetically central [a], not back [ɑ], although the difference is not contrastive.
In actual Italian, the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ is neutralized in unstressed syllables, and the merged realization is typically transcribed as [e]. But as I mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule about when [e] vs. [ɛ] should be used in an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation of Latin.
The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is something like [ˈaŋgɛliː]. The final vowel is long. As mentioned earlier, there was no phonemic contrast between velar and palatal stops in Classical Latin, so we don't know whether coarticulation with/assimilation to the following front vowel might have caused the "ng" to be pronounced as something like [ɲɟ] in this context.
As far as I know, there is little evidence that would provide grounds for reconstructing the specific quality of the Classical Latin "a" sound. It is agreed that it was an open/low vowel, but that would be compatible with anything in the range of [a], [ɑ] or [ɐ].
In "traditional English pronunciation", angeli would be ˈændʒəlaɪ (or possibly /ˈændʒɪlaɪ/? I'm not sure whether /ɪ/ would be possible in an accent without the "weak vowel merger").
In traditional German pronunciation, I believe it would be [ˈaŋgeli].