From the quote of the third link:
> The Five Eyes countries agree to exchange by default all signals intelligence they gather, as well as methods and techniques related to signals intelligence operations.
This seems like a pretty clear implication that a Five Eyes country gets information about its own citizens via automatic sharing of information gathered by the other countries. Whether they technically "asked" for the information or not is not relevant.
No, it does not. If it did, Snowden's documents would have contained evidence showing that the NSA either has a copy of the GCHQ wiretap data or that the NSA has direct query access to it, either of which would have been a blockbuster story. There was no such evidence.
Instead, what your quote means is that the parties to the agreement can ask the other parties for any information about their collection they like, and the default response (if there are no overriding rules) will be to return that information. The US cannot ask another country for data about its own citizens without a warrant because, as I've stated multiple times, that is illegal.
You are creating some all-seeing bogeyman by misreading some words. This is better than dredmorbius's comments in that you misread some words instead of not reading them and pretending they said something, but do you understand that misreading words is how conspiracy theories are created?
Your second link simply states that the UK has access to intercepts that it shares with the US. It doesn't say that the US asks the UK for data on people it is prohibited by law from spying on.
Your third link likewise does not say anything about any of the member countries illegally spying on their own citizens using other countries' data.
This all makes sense because what you are claiming is illegal, and there would have been lawsuits against the US government about it if there were any evidence (even the slightest hint of any evidence) it was happening because it would be by far the most egregious overreach in the leaks. The government cannot pay a third party to illegally search a US citizen any more than it can pay a third party to illegally detain one. Instead, the only illegal US program in Snowden's leaks was the phone metadata collection, which has since been shut down.