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.
Because the State had a;ready broken the silly code and already knew what was in the account and since they already knew they weren't deceived. They are putting on a big act to deceive the people. They were going after the perjury charge and stopped when they thought they had it. They didn't ask the BiL because then there wouldn't be any perjury charge. The other prison tapes, for the four days before the hearing, have many exonerating snippets including doubts about how the money should be treated, and as the blog says:
I don’t believe Shellie will be convicted on the sham “perjury” charges as the above comes out and it is shown she answered truthfully to the question of the balances “right now". She testified she didn’t know the current balances but her brother-in-law did and was available to give that information. And the State made it perfectly clear it never wanted those amounts in the first place.
The State was not deceived.