Making assumptions about the cognitive capacities of others

There is a class of logical fallacies involving the illegitimate attribution of rational ability, comprehension, or belief to others. I believe this sort of fallacy has a familiar name in the literature, but I've forgotten what it is. It is somewhat similar to the Intensional Fallacy, or the Hooded Man Fallacy, but not quite the same. Here is an example:

Paul knows (or believes) that Trump is guilty of abusing his power as POTUS.
Anyone guilty of abusing his power as POTUS should be impeached.
Therefore, Paul knows (or believes) that Trump should be impeached.

This would fall under a bad assumption or faulty premise. The argument itself is valid, Paul could believe what he wants. What were are objecting to is the process by which Paul formed his beliefs, which is more of a deep dive in epistemology rather than something to do with fallacies. We can make assumptions about the cognitive capacities of others; this is not fallacious. Again, it is the process by which we make those assumptions that can be accurate or not accurate, or the reasons we give for our assumptions could be fallacious. For example, "I think Trump is a moron because he plays golf too much." This would be a non-sequitur because his playing golf too much has no reasonable connection to cognitive capacity.

{date-time stamp}Wednesday, Dec 11, 2019 02:34 PM{/date-time stamp}

Read Edward's comment below. I read this too quickly and did not consider what was being argued.