If she deceived the court, then she committed perjury. If she didn't commit perjury, then she didn't deceive the court. It's both or neither. But if the court was deceived and she didn't commit perjury, then the court has only itself to blame for not asking the right questions.
That's not necessarily so, as even the blog you linked to earlier argues. And I'm not sure why you are trying to defend this. Back when Clinton was parsing the definition of "is" to show he had not technically lied, it seemed clear to most people that he'd been deliberately deceptive. He wasn't charged with perjury, either.