"Why would there be an extradition warrant when he was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London while being sought for an extradition warrant to Sweden where the UK courts would have been reluctant to send him to Sweden if there was an existing US warrant that the Swedes would act upon where the death penalty could apply?"
Jeez, not this logical contortion again. An extradition request could have been served to the UK while he was in custody before he absconded. The UK would have had to hold an extradition hearing (like they're doing now) or send him to Sweden. If the US had served an extradition request to Sweden while he was in the UK, the same thing would have applied (but more likely Sweden would have correctly answered, he's not here, you morons).
If an extradition request was served on Sweden *after* he'd been sent there by the UK, then *Sweden* would have held a hearing (incidentally, they're less compliant with the US than the UK are on extradition) but the UK would also have to hold one as a consequence. In this scenario, *both* the UK and Sweden would have to agree to extradite.
"The US, under Obama, were not going to make an extradition request until he was in Swedish custody"
Again, entirely illogical - it was easier to extradite from the UK than it is from Sweden, even without considering that in the latter scenario, both countries would have had to agree to onwardly extradite from Sweden.
"more importantly, Obama's administration tortured Bradley/Chelsea Manning with the intent of getting evidence that Assange/wikileaks actively encouraged and abetted Manning to access, export and pass on confidential information."
I think you mean, more importantly, Obama did the only thing he could to intervene - he pardoned Chelsea Manning. I also don't think there's any question that's exactly what Assange did. The pertinent question seems to be, are those the actions of a journalist? The US thinks yes, the world seems to be split along the lines of whether they think Assange is a colossal tool or not.