After the Wikileaks releases, we know without a doubt that the Democrat primaries were rigged for Clinton. Multiple people were forced to resign from high paying DNC posts over it.

I see no reason to think that the actual election in November won't also be rigged to the maximum extent possible for Clinton.

"Rigged". You keep using that word... In which primaries (enumerate the states, please) did Clinton win fewer votes (than Sanders or O'Malley) yet receive the majority of delegates?

The Wikileaks release showed no such thing.

Why was Clinton so effective compared to the GOP's old guard? They absolutely despise their nominee- why weren't they able to pull enough dirty tricks to sink Trump?

And, again, in the general, I've seen no evidence that the Clinton camp is vastly less moral than the GOP/Trump camp- why attribute all potential rigging to Clinton when the GOP has just as much reason to pull the same tricks?

Maybe because GOP primaries isn't more corrupt than Dems. Maybe the GOP constituency actually does consist of the type of people who want Trump.

Similarly, the Democrats have a lot of people who wanted Clinton, and 3 million more of them appear to have turned out to vote than did Sanders supporters.

I just don't see how, if widespread primary rigging is effective and not all that difficult (since the DNC, who really aren't all THAT clever, supposedly "rigged" it without much in the way of repercussions) Trump could end up the GOP nominee against the wishes of the GOP elite.

It's quite easy to explain Clinton's win without any shady "rigging." It's quite difficult to manufacture 3 million net votes- that's either a lot of ballot-box stuffing or a huge voter disenfranchisement campaign and there's no evidence of either. The simplest explanation is that the Dem constituency consists of people who want her.