No. There are alternative opinions, not alternative facts.
You can look at Trump taking the piss out of a handicapped reporter and opinionate whether he's taking the piss or whether he's not.
You cannot deny that the video exists.
Well, obviously you can, but the axiomas we use to form emperical evidence suggest that you're detached from reality (psychotic) if you claim the video doesn't exist.
Now, we can interpret what we see.
We can compare what we see to what we've seen before.
For example: watch 3 random Trump speeches and then watch the one I'm referring to.
You can see, as a fact, that his behaviour and speech pattern are different when talking about the handicapped reporter.
Is that taking the piss or coincidence?
We can look at stereotypical videos of people acting like spastics and compare it to the Trump video. We can see direct similarities: fact.
And so forth.
Eventually, you can rule out all other possibilities other than he was taking the piss.
And then it is a fact.
And it's only a fact based on the information we've at hand. When more information comes to light, you have to re-evaluate the fact.
Not to do so is ignoring the possibility that something is a fact due to a lack of information.
So, facts can change, but they can't be two different facts at the same time.
Hence that alternative facts don't exist.