This is not something that can really be determined in isolation from the actual conduct. There are layers of subtlety, non-verbal communication, degrees of touching, etc. that go on. There are some women who lust after powerful men, and will gladly hop in the sack with them because of that power. If Trump is referring to that, then it may not be actual assault. It would be difficult to make that determination without knowing more about the particular incidents where it happened.
And while a lot of folks like to throw the "assault" label on as a technical legal definition applicable to any unwanted touching, that usage of the word can be misleading. Back in my younger days, I had my butt and various other body parts touched without permission by women (sometimes just a touch inebriated) who used it as kind of a heavy come-on. The idea of claiming "assault" was absurd -- it was generally "no thanks", or "not interested". Sometimes it took more than one turn-down before they got the message. Then again, it wasn't always turned down.
Obviously that things can go farther than that, so I'm not saying that what Trump did was "only" boorish and not really assault. I'm simply saying that these kind of things really need to be looked at in a lot more detail to get an accurate handle on what went on.
An awful lot gets ignored as not worthy of complaint. Someone is out of line, you put them back in line, end of story. In many cases, it's just not worth complaining about--but we're guys, and yes, Virginia, there is a double standard there.
But, once again, we're seeing a small rock sticking out of an ocean. That little chunk of lithic material above sea level isn't floating, it isn't something isolated, rather it has a lot beneath it holding it up.
The idea that because he is
somebody he can conduct himself in such a fashion as to ignore the patent lack of desire some women may have for his advances is the foundation that small rock sits on. Whether that be callous disregard for other people, objectification, hubris on his part, or the idea that somehow money and a little fame (often seen as equating to power) grant him immunity from the rules--whether those be just common decency or the Law--a lot unseen underlies his behaviour.
You decide whether that is just a rare instance of misguided testosterone, like a rock floating in the ocean, or the tip of a seamount, just the momentary manifestation of a much deeper syndrome of behaviour. If the latter, then it bespeaks an attitude that the ordinary rules don't apply to him as a result of his wealth or fame or power, some form of
jus primae noctis or droit du seigneur.
As for assault, well, one possible metric is simple enough to apply. If the average guy did what he claimed he did to whom he did it to, would he be facing charges? If you or I walked in on Miss USA pageant contestants changing clothes? Laid nude in their hotel beds waiting for them? Groped married women while 'shopping for furniture'? What are the chances we would be arrested for such behaviour?
If he only 'got away with it' because of wealth, fame, or 'power', that bespeaks a serious tendency to abuse that power, if not the feeling that he is entitled to do so. That's the mountain that puts the little rock above the waves. We know what Hillary will do with such an attitude. After all, 'rules are for little people'. Unfortunately, supporting that mentality from the allegedly Conservative end of the political spectrum would leave no place at the table for the Rule of Law.
