Money and a gun are no where near the same thing. What the fuck on you on??
The comparison works though.
Trump is implying that the only reason these women let him do those things are because he's rich, famous, and has power. They wouldn't let him do those things if they weren't afraid of possible retaliation. That is the same thing with me mugging you. You're afraid of me retaliating against you.
The point is that consent is not a Y/N question, that it is grey and that a person cannot consent when under duress.
Or if you'd prefer, we don't need to use analogies and we can examine reality: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html His perception of what "they let you do" may be different than the woman's. For instance, a woman has already come forward saying Donald Trump did this without her consent. This is sexual assault. There simply a disconnect between Donald's perception of reality, and how things actually are.
Also, consent is given before the act. If Trump puts on his hand on a woman's genitals (and he's usually in a position of power w/r/t the woman he's groping) and she, out of fear of rejection and possible financial loss, doesn't ask him to stuff his hand up a cow's ass then it's because it's not a level playing field.
Having money does not automatically make someone a threat. In the context of retaliation, i.e. threatening behavior/communication, the analogy works. But there isn't so it's moot. Position of power is delving into another subject that's not what happened here.